Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
LEHISIATIVE FTSTdRY
Riblic Law 534 — 7Fth Congress
Chapter 665 — 2d. Session
n. R. 4485
TABLE.: OF CONTETTS
Digest of Riblic Law 534 . 1
Index and Snnmary of History on H. R, 44B5 . 2
* * * * » * t ‘
DIGEST or PII’TTC rA?r 534
FLOOD CONTROL AT THORTZAT JOT’S. Axitborizes var5.ors Arricrltiire
Lepartrpent post-v/ar pr^'ijects, Rearthorizps for post-war rse,
the $10,000,000 anthorizatnor in Sec. 7 of the Flood Control
Act of 193^i arthorizes rse of $100,000 by the Airier Itnre
Department to safepaard Ij.fe and property in flood emergen¬
cies. Provides that, in conrection vath Agriculture Depart¬
ment projects, lands may be acquired, but only with the
consent of the States and with payments iv lieu of taxes.
Authorizes comprehensive plans for the development of the
T'i’^souri River Das in as proposed in S. Doc. 247 - 7Sthi Gong.,
and authorizes $200,000,000 each for the Jar and Interior
Departments to carry^ out part of this vrork. Provides for
State approval in determining vratershed developm.ent and for
State review of T'ar and Interior reports.
1
4
PTKX A^T) OF FTSTORY ON H. R. 4485
ray 13, 1943
Hearings! House, H. R, 4485, Vol, 1,
Febrrary 1, 1944
Hearings: House, H. R. 4485, Vol, 11.
I'arch 27, 1944
H, R. 4485 was introduced by Rep. Vfhittinrton and v/as
referred to the House Comn. on Flood ControD. Print of
the bill as introduced.
Farcb 29, 19/^
House Committee reported H. P. 4485 vn.tbout amendment.
HoUvSe Report 1309. Print of the bill as reported.
Fay 8, 1944
House debate on H. R. 4485.
Vay 9, 1944
House debate concluded. Passed H. R. L/.S5 with amendments
Fay 10, 1944
H, R. 4485 v;as referred to the Senate ^omj??ittee on
Conmerce. Print of the bill as referred.
•
Remarks of Reps, Sparkman, Allen, and BirVcsen.
>^ay 32, 1944
Amendments proposed by Senator bowney. Pri-nts of the
amendments.
'^ay 19, 1944
Amendment proposed by Senator Nye. ^rint of the am*endment
Fay 29, 1944
Am.enctaent proposed by Senator butler. Print of the amend¬
ment.
Hearings! Senate, H. R. 4485.
June 5, 1944
Amendment proposed by Senator Wallgren. Print of the
amendr ent .
June 22, 1944
Senate Gormiittee reported H. R. 4485 with amendments.
Senate Report IO3O. (Print of the bill as reported, not
available )
August 9, l‘?^44
Amendment proposed by Senator Hayden. Print of the amend-
m.ent .
Auffust 22, 1944
Discussed in the Senate.
Au^ist 28, 1944
Amendm.ent proposed by Senator ?ead. Print of the amend-
m.ent .
September 8, 1944
^endm.ent proposed by Senator Aiken with discussion.
Print of the ar'endment.
2
/■’ ’ ’
' ' ' I:
f
^ ' -
/>< ;
.'I-
!■ I '
r ' r-'
i-' '
(V . ■ -
September 15
September 19
September 21
^Vvember 21,
November 22,
November 24,
November 27,
November 2B,
November 29,
November 30,
December 1,
December 4,
December 11,
December 12,
December 22,
, 1944
, 1944
, 1944
1^44
1944
1944
1944
1944
1944
1944
1^44
1944
Amendmert proposed by Senator Sbipstead. Pr:?nt of the
amendment .
Amendment proposed, by Senator Taft with dlscrssion in
the Senate. Print of the amendmert.
Amendment proposed by Senator Aiken and others. Pr^nt
of the amendment.
Senate began debate.
Amendm'ents proposed by Senators Pailej?-, n»?'^ahoney and
others. Prints of the amendments.
Debate continued.
Amendments proposed by Senators Murray, Nalorey, and
Danger. Prints of the amendments.
Debate continued.
Amendments proposed by Senators Burton, O'^'^ahoney and
others. Prints of the amendments.
Debate continued.
Amendments proposed by Senator Cordon. Prints of the
amendm.ents .
Debate continued.
Debate continued.
Am.endment proposed by Delator Nurray. Print of the
amendment.
Debate c ont i nu ed .
Debate concluded. Passed the Senate with amendments.
Senate Conferees appointed. House Conferees appointed.
Print of H. R. 4485 with the amendments of the Senate
numbered .
1944 House received the Conference Report. Rouse Report 2051.
1944 HoUvse and Senate agreed to the Conference Report.
1944 Approved. Pi^blic law 534.
3
. •V ■4'‘''’''
)
A^- •
r.
*■•1
■*' il.;*''^
.a^j, 'i . ,>^'•^ir!(g;’j|i^^JP' “0.tA>*»?‘tr.^f-:'^>. j ■ **31^’ - _--, .
• " ■' r , ‘ . ■ .■*r^ ‘',< ■•’^.^ ^»■«, , " 'll^A ■;
.' ■ . ■'•.■^‘■' ' ' ' V'' '■■i;':. . i, ■ ■.■■
‘*1
.#'■■ •■ . ' •' ■:*;r ■ ' ' '.M '‘ iAif ®-
.M V
, **-'■ ' V^. - V.
■ - '■ - C'f^4 t:
■ J*-,
• ' • " ' - / *' >»’'r-i?*' t’- i "j,
■■ ■•.’■ A ••., '■
,' • r . «>*.’ .“
■ ’ ,. ‘' ; .
♦ W '.> '
.. . :
■ ■ TO^:;
* ,1
... Ai *>'
.ff iJ-A-V; , '. V ':-“
4' : ’f
4.;
• »'l
. :f.
m^-'' ' ' ."'I:;;' r:,;' " ;^f '*'' '=s
». A ■ ■ ’ll ■' '.'■' - . 4.
' ’■>'' .'i. .'V'tff- -'".f ^
.VA"^
i ^ > ' ■
*7 '•T.i
1 ■ iJ* ‘ . ’ ■ - , .AVm.^fT.
U.-^ '■ ■/.,?■ *'•■ /;:
,^_ -. ■ ■ . . '■ ' .;■ ••f./^' •*’-
fc ■ " ■ ' . 'w. "I ®- — 'iVv- '
iirP', ' ' •'•■ ■;■■/ ■
. .U *•',>♦*• » '.> ^ ...,_
I ^••4- - • < 1
.'Ai.'T..
; : ^1-' ..mm
0-; ^ '■ ■■>
t yB
, ■ 'r¥
.41
*% *■
't;
■A
lIi^V
4A» ^
1
-• Office of IBudget and Ti nance
Legislative Reports and Service Section
78th-lst, No. 56
DIGEST OF PROCEEDINGS OP CONGRESS OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(issued March 28, 1944, for actions of Monday, March 27,^
(For staff of the Department only)
. . 2
Appropr i at IS
Crop insurance . iS""
Flood control . 5,10
Food a.dm, (general) . 22
Fopd distri'bution,5^4,i7, 27
Foreign policy .
Foreign trade^-i i'.’’;";';'.'. . , 11
. IS
CONTENTS
Infornption . 12
Judicipry . ,13
•Lahp r , f arm . 1,24
Lends .'"pahlic*,, . . . . .22ajjg.3-
Lend-lease . . . , 22
Lo an s ,,, f anS . -•'y
Personnel . i,6
Price control.* . 19,26
Priorities . 25
SENATE
Rationing . .,,2
Selective service* 2, 24
Standard time* . . l4
Surplus commodities. , .17
Taxation . 6,20,25
Tennessee Valley '■
Authority . ,9
Veteran s TV'-;- . . .,5
Nar-progran investi¬
gation . ;.7,
1. FIRST DEFICiSjNCy APPROPRIATION BILL. Appropriations Committee reported with
amendments th^ hill. He R. 4346 (Reiot. No. not aval lahle). The Committee added
■ $74,000 for BPlSbl^ to develox") and improve sugafcane-productioi^.ffl’achinery;
$39,436,854.93 "to restore C(^' s capital impairment; $4,000,000 for continuation
of the Office of Education* s program for training persons^., in food processing,
farm production, etc. ; ^^212, 000 (total in this hill wopdd then he $312,000) as
an increase in CCC s admi'nistrative-expense authorization; and a provision that
community ceiling nrice orders and schedules not he'^printed in the Federal
Register. The community- facilities item was cut-hy $15,000,000. (For other'
provisions of the hill, see Digests 43, 45, a^pnf^ 46. These items include
overtime pay. Forest Service, and Office of^ahor.)
- - - /
NOT IN SESSION.
Ne xt meeting Tue s * , Mar , "
HG?tSE
2. A. A. A.; SELECTIVE SERVICE;’ GASOLINE RATIOITING^;, Rep. Tarver, Ga., inserted
Judge Jones' letter and sta,tfement on the Harness, amendment relating to alleged
activities of AAA field p.ersonnel in connection wi^th sdective service defer¬
ments and gasoline rationing (pp. 3455“6)*
3. SCHOOL-LUNCH PROGRAM'." Rop. Church, Ill., claimed that the Cook County (ill.)
Democratic organization was "penny snatching" in the Chicago school-lunch pro¬
gram (pp. 3151-4).
4. OILSEED-MEAIO' DISTRIBUTION. Rep. Smith, Uis., criticized WFA' s ‘administration of
the oilsg^d-meal distribution program (pp. 3^54, AI632-3) •
♦
5. VETEIAND; farm LOANS. Rep. Rogers, Mass., stated that S. I767 (providing for
Federal Government aid for the readjustment in civilian life of returning
v^erans from World War 2, including a provision for loans to veterans for the
^rchase of farms and equipment) would not he taken up this week, urged early
/enactment of such legislation, and inserted the Senate Committee report on this
^ hill (pp. 3184-94).
6>“2^S01'WEL; TaXATIOI. Passed with’ amendments H.R. 3592, to relieve Federal em-
pibsi^^es from multiple State income taxes on -their salaries and to perrni,!- only
the StSta in which such employee, is domiciled to levy such tax (pp* '3^'59“6^»
3171-8). ^ '
Civil Servi'p.e Committee reported the following hills: E«tE. 4115} to give
Veterans and their -dependent s preference in employment where Federal funds are
disbursed (vdth amendment) (H.Rept© I289); H«,E. 4292* to amend Sec* 12 (h) of
the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to return of amounts deducted
from salaries (v.dth amendment) (HoRept® 1290-)"; and H.R. 4320, relating to the
■ c6mt)utati0n of interest ©n* contrila}ition§..to ^the ' civil-service retirement fund
* 'returned to separated employees- (vrit^l^^t amendment) (H. Rept. 1291) (p>* 319^)?
T' '
I »
'AR-PROGRAivi IFVESTIG-ATIOHi ■ Smith, His., urged early ^d favorable con-
■sidhration* of his H* Con . . 74,. providing for' a. Joint ^ Congressional^ Committee
on the Conduct of th^-4far (pp-.. .
. ' “ /
FLOOD' G0HTR0L®,..?^eceived a War- Department flootcontrol^ surve^' Report on the
Yazoo Riv.^i<Miss® (HoDoc *■ - J'o- Control Committ_e_e^._ ^(p,>3;^.^4^
I
YE^UiSTSSEE valley AUTHORITY. Repo Priest, Tenn., discussed ’’T.V.A. financing
TOich may be of interest because of action taken in another bo^'4 (,pp*. 3179-^)-4
BILLS IHTRODUCED
10.
FLOOD COHTROL. By Rep® \/hitti'ngton. Miss®, H.R. 4485, * authorizing "the construc¬
tion of certain public works on rivers and harbors for.. flood control. To
Flood Control Committee, (p. 3195“) ’’ . -^4
By Rep. Mills, Ark., H.R. 4494, to provide for the construct ioiij mainteh-
ance, and operation of flood-control and navigation improvements, including
dams, reservoirs, and allied structures, in the basins of the Arkansas and
Hhite Rivers, and for the disposition of surplus electric .energy generated by
the Federal flood-control and navigation improvements in the basins of such
rivers. To Rivers and Harbors Committee, (p. 31950
If, FOREIGH TRADE. By Rep. McMurray, His., H.R. 4493i 1° promote the trade and com¬
merce of U.S. and to promote trade and commerce among the nations of the world. |
To Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, (p. 3195“)
12, IHFORMaTIOH. By Rep. Hoffman, Mich., H«Res. 485, requesting^ information from 4
the S'-crstary of Agriculture® (p, 3195*) Agriculture -vomraittee.
* 4
13® JUDICIARY. By Rep. Kefauver, Tenn., H.R® 4487, lo authorize the designation i
of retired Justices for service on the U.S. Supreme Court when necessary to ^
obtain a quorum® To Judiciary Committee,, (p. 3195“) h
■ f
l4. STANDARD TIME. By Rep, Cannon, Mo®, H'®n® 4489, to restore standard time. To |
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, (p, 3195-) 4
15® CROP IHSUEAHCE. By Rep® Fuln^e’r, S.C,, (see Digest 5I) H.R.- 4426, to amend the l'\
Federal Crop insurance Atit b'y providing for vheat and cotton insurance begin-
hing in 1945 and for insurance on tobacco, rice, and commerci airfare a field
corn beginning in 1946; providing for coverage of -not over 75^ of' investment , 3
except in the case of vrheat, which vrould continue to be based largely on yield; 3
prohibiting^ insurance in a county unless at least 100 farms or I/3 of its farms)]
.are to^ insured; and providing for county balances if premiums exceed indem-
nitj^, such balances to be used in case indemnities exceed premiums later.
To<agri culture Committee,
78th CONGEESS
2d Session
R. 4485
IN THE HOUSE OF REPKESENTATIVES
March 27, 1944
Mr. Whittington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Flood Control
A BILL
Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That the words ‘^flood control” as used in section 1 of the
4 Act of June 22, 1936, shall be construed to include channel
5 and major drainage improvements, and that hereafter Federal
6 investigations and improvements of rivers and other water-
7 ways for flood control and allied purposes shall be under
8 the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the War De-
9 partment under the direction of the Secretary of War and
10 supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Federal investi-
11 gallons of watersheds and measures for run-off and^w^lnr-
2
1 flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds
2 ^hall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted
3 by the Department of Agriculture_un^r the direction of the
4 ^Se^tary of Agricultm;^ except as otherwise provided by
5 Act of Congress.
6 Sec. 2. That section 3 of the Act approved June 22,
7 1936 (Public, hTumhered 738, Seventy-fourth Congress) , as
8 amended by section 2 of the Act approved June 28, 1938
9 (Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress)* , shall apply
10 to all works authorized in this Act, except that for any chan-
11 nel improvement or channel rectification project provisions
12 (a) , (b) , and (c) of section 3 of said Act of Jime 22, 1936,
13 shall apply thereto, and except as otherwise provided by
14 law: Provided, That the authorization for any flood-control
15 project herein adopted requiring local cooperation shall expire
16 five years from the date on which local interests are notified
17 in writing by the War Department of the requirements of
18 local cooperation, unless said interests shall within said time
19 furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that
20 the required cooperation will be furnished.
21 Sec. 3. In order to fully utihze dam and reservoir areas
22 under the control of the War Department, the Chief of
23 Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of War,
24 is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate recreation,
25 conservation, and other facilities thereat advantageous to the
3
1 interests of tlie United States, or to permit the construction,
2 maintenance, and operation of such facihties. The Secretary
3 of War is authorized to grant leases of lands, structures, or
4 facilities in said areas for such periods and upon such terms
5 as he may deem reasonable. All moneys received for such
6 leases or privileges shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
7 United States as miscellaneous receipts.
8 Sec. 4. That the Secretary of War is authorized to sell
9 to States, municipalities, private concerns, or individuals, at
10 such prices and on such terms as he may deem reasonable,
11 for domestic and industrial uses surplus water that may be
12 available at anv reservoir under the control of the War
13 Department. All moneys received from such sales shall be
11 deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscel-
15 laneous receipts.
10 Sec. 5. Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Secretary
17 of War to prescribe regulations for the use of storage avail-
13 able for flood control or navigation at all reservoirs con-
19 structed wholly or in part with F ederal funds provided on the
20 basis of such purposes, and the operation of any such project
21 shall be in accordance with such regulations.
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever in the opinion of the Secre-
taiy of War and the Chief of Engineers any dam and reservoir
^1 project operated under the direction of the Secretary of
25 pg consistently used for reclamation of arid lands.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to pre¬
scribe regulations for the use of the storage available for
such purpose, and the operation of any such project shall
be in accordance with such regulations. Such rates, as the
Secretary of the Interior may deem reasonable, shall be
charged for the use of said stored water; the moneys re¬
ceived to be deposited into the Treasury to the credit of
miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 7. That the following works of improvement for
the benefit of navigation and the control of destructive flood
waters and other purposes are hereby adopted and author¬
ized in the interest of the national security and with a view
toward providing an adequate reservoir of useful and worthy
public works for the post-war construction program, to be
prosecuted under the direction of the Secretaiy of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the
plans in the respective reports hereinafter designated and
subject to the conditions set forth therein: Provided, That
the necessary plans, specifications, and preliminary work
may be prosecuted during the war, with funds from appro¬
priations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control, so
*
as to be ready for rapid inauguration of a post-war program
of construction: Provided further, That when the existing
critical situation with respect to materials, equipment, and
manpower no longer exists, and in any event not later than
1
2
o
O
4
5
6
7
^8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
immediately following the cessation of hostilities in the
present war, the projects herein authorized shall be initiated
as expeditiously as may be consistent with budgetary re¬
quirements and shall be prosecuted vigorously during the
period of post-war reconversion : And provided further, That
f
penstocks and other similar facilities adapted to possible
future use in the development of hydroelectric power shall
be installed in any dam herein authorized when approved
by the Secretary of War on the recommendation of the
Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission.
Coi^NECTICUT EiVEE BaSIN
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $30,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Connecticut Eiver Basin: Provided,
That neither this authorization nor previous authorizations
shall be construed to authorize the construction of a high
dam at the Williams ville site.
Thames Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for the Thames Eiver Basin at an
estimated cost of $7,200,000.
t
6
1 Housatonic Eiver Basin
2 The project for the Thomaston Eeservoir on the l^auga-
3 tuck Eiver, for flood control in the Housatonic Eiver
4 Basin, Connecticut, is hereby authorized substantially in
5 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
6 Engineers in House Document Humhered 338, Seven ty-
7 seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
8 $5,151,000.
9 Susquehanna Eiver Basin
10 The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936,
11 to provide for local protection works on the Susquehanna
12 Eiver at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is hereby modified sub-
13 stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
14 Chief of Engineers in House Document N^umbered 702,
15 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
16 cost of $2,227,000.
17 The project for flood protection at Tyrone, Pennsyl-
18 vania, on the Little Juniata Eiver, Pennsylvania, is hereby
19 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
20 tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Hum-
21 bered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an
22 estimated cost of $1,392,000.
23 The plan for flood control in southern Hew York and
24 eastern Pennsylvania authorized by the Act of June 22,
25 1936, as modified by the Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby
V
7
1 further modified to include the South Plymouth and Gene-
2 gantslet Eeservoirs on tributaries of the Chenango Eiver
3 substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
4 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 702,
5 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
6 additional cost of $4,755,000.
7 The plan for the Eaystown Eeservoir on the Eaystown
8 Branch of the Juniata Eiver, Pennsylvania, for flood con-
9 trol and other purposes, suhstantiaily in accordance with
10 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
11 Document Humhered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec-
12 ond session, is approved, and there is hereby authorized to
13 he appropriated the sum of $2,000,000 for the initiation
14 and partial accomplishment thereof.
15 Mobile Eiver BAsm— Alabama-Coosa Eiver Basin ‘
16 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
17 authorized the completion of the Allatoona Eeservoir on the
18 Etowah Eiver, Georgia, approved in the Act of August 18,
19 1941, at an estimated cost of $14,400,000.
20 Lower Mississippi Eiver
21 The project for flood control and improvement of the
22 Lower Mississippi Eiver adopted by the Act of May 15,
23 1928, as amended by subsequent Acts of Congress, is
24 hereby modified in accordance with .the recommendations
25 of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 509,
8
1 Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, and, as modified,
2 is hereby adopted and there is hereby authorized to be
3 appropriated, in addition to the sums previously authorized,
4 $200,000,000 for the accomplishment of the purposes set
5 forth in said document.
6 The project for flood control on the Boeuf and Tensas
7 Rivers and Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana, is hereby
8 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
#
9 tions of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Num-
10 bered 151, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
11 estimated cost of $5,013,000.
12 The project for flood control on the Big Sunflower, Little
12 Sunflower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver Rivers and their tribu¬
ll taries, and on Hull Brake-MiU Creek Canal, Bogue Phaha,
15 Ditchlow Bayou, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou, Mississippi,
1^ is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
1"^ recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu-
12 ment Numbered 516, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
19 session, at an estimated cost of $3,752,000.
^9 The project for flood protection in the backwater area
%
21 of the Yazoo River authorized in the Flood Control Act of
22 August 18, 1941, is hereby amended to authorize the Chief
of Engineers, in his discretion, to include improvements for
94.
the protection of the Satartia area at an estimated additional
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
cost of $1,061,000 or, in liis discretion, to include improve¬
ments for the protection of the Satartia area plus its extension
at an estimated additional cost of $1,952,000.
Eed-Ouachita Eiver Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act of
August 18, 1941, for the Little Missouri Kiver in Arkansas,
at an estimated cost of $3,800,000.
AeKxInsas Kivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $35,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Arkansas River Basin.
The projects for local flood protection on the Arkansas
River are herehv modified and authorized substantiallv in
«/
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 447, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated additional
cost of $10,299,400.
The project on tributaries of the Eountaine Quc Bouiile -
River for flood protection at Colorado Springs, Colorado; is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
H. R. 4485 - 2
10
1 Numbered 186, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
2 estimated cost of $500,000.
3 The project on Purgatoire Eiver for local flood protection
4 at Trinidad, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
5 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
6 neers in House Document -Numbered 387, Seventy-eighth
7 Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $909,000.
8 White Eivee Basin
9 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
10 authorized to be appropriated the sum of $45,000,000 for
14 the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
12 Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
13 August 18, 1941, for the White Eiver Basin.
11 Uppee Mississippi Eivee Basin
lb In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
10 authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
11 the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
13 Act of June 28, 1938, for the Upper Mississippi Eiver
19 Basin. r '
20 The project authorized hy the Act of June 22, 1936,
21 for local flood protection on the Mississippi Eiver at the
22 Sainte Genevieve Levee District Numbered 1, Missouri, is
^3 hereby modified substantially in accordance with the recom-
^1 mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
1 I^umbered 727, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
2 at an estimated cost of $141,000.
3 The project on the Mississippi Elver for local flood pro-
4 tection at Sabula, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially
5 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
6 Engineers in House Document Numbered 328, Seventy-
7 seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
8 $25,000.
9 The project on the Galena Eiver, for local flood protec-
Id tion at Galena, Illinois, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
12 neers in House Document Numbered 336, Seventy-seventh
18 Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $300,000.
The project for flood control on the Illinois Eiver is
15 hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom-
1^ mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
IT, Numbered 692, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
18 at an estimated cost of $111,500.
1^ The project on Elk Creek and Turkey Eiver for local
20 flood protection at Elkport, Iowa, is hereby authorised suh-
21 stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
22 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 700,
28 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
21 cost of $13,000.
1
Eed Eivee of the Xoeth Basin
2 The projects for flood control for Eed Lake Elver, Min-
3 nesota, including Clearwater Eiver, Minnesota, are hereh}^
4 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
5 tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
h 345, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
7 cost of $902,940.
8 Missouei Eivee Basin
9 The general comprehensive plan for flood control and
10 other purposes in the Missouri Eiver Basin approved by the
11 Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by subsequent Acts, is
12 hereby expanded to include the plan of improvement for
Id flood control, irrigation, power development, navigation, and
^1 other purposes, substantially in accordance with the recom-
15. mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
10 Numbered 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session;;
11 and as expanded is approved; and,' in addition to previous
1^ authorizations, there is herel)y authorized to be appropriated
1^ the sum of $200,000,000 for the partial accomplishment of
20 the comprehensive plan as modified and expanded : Provided,
21 That nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating below
22 Sioux City any demand upon tlie water resources of the
2d ]\[issouri Eiver Basin above Sioux City in excess of that
cyA
now authorized l)y existing law: And provided further, That
portions of the storage authorized for the main stem of the
1
o
O
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
river shall be i)laced on tributaries if the Secretaiy of \Yar
and the Chief of Engineers find such action advisable for silt
control and in order to make more water readily available
for agricultural and industrial use without impairment of
flood control below Sioux Citv and without increasino- the
• o
%
authorized limit of cost.
The project adopted by the Act of June 22, 1936, to
provide flood protection for the Kansas Citys, Kansas and
Missouri, is hereby modified and extended to provide for
improvement substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Kumbered 342, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated additional cost for the modified project of
$8,445,000.
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for Cherry Creek and tributaries, Colo¬
rado, at an estimated cost of $7,500,000.
The project on Knife Kiver for local flood control at
Beulah, Korth Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Doeument Kuml)ered 252, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $26,100.
The project on Knife Kiver for local flood control at
Hazen, Korth Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 252, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $6,600.
The project on Milk River adopted by the Act of June
22, 1936, to provide local flood protection at Harlem, Mon¬
tana, is hereby modified substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Docu¬
ment Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost of $21,100.
The project on Milk Elver for local flood protection at
Havre, Montana, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Senate Document Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost of $313,100.
The project on Boyer Eiver for local flood control on
East Fork of Boyer Eiver at Denison, Iowa, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
/
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
254, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $17,830.
The project on Nishnabotna Eiver for local flood control
«
at Hamburg, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 253, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $236,000.
15
1 The project on Bear Creek for local flood protection at
2 Morrison, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
3 accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
4 in House Document Numbered 356, Seventy-eighth Con-
5 gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $220,000.
6 OHIO EIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
8 authorized to be appropriated the sum of $70,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
10 Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
11 August 18, 1941, for the Ohio Eiver Basin, including the
12 following projects in tributary basins, namely:
12 The local flood protection works in the Lake Chautauqua
I"! and Chadakoin Eiver area, substantially in accordance with
15 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Id Document Numbered 685, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec-
^ ond session, at an estimated cost of $135,500;
18 The local flood protection works at Dillonvale and
1^ Adena on Short Creek, Ohio, substantially in accordance
20 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
21 House Document Numbered 889, Seventy-seventh Congress,
22 second session, at an estimated cost of $158,200;
22 The local flood protection works at Taylorsville on Salt
24 Eiver, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the recom-
2'^ mendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
1
2
3
4
5
G
n
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Numbered 105, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $129,350;
The local flood protection works at Latrobe on Loyal-
hanna Creek, Pennsylvania, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 444, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $112,500;
The BmT Oak Eeservoir on the Hocking Eiver, Ohio,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 762,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $400,000;
The Eowlesburg Eeservoir on the Cheat Eiver, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in the report submitted to Congress by
the Secretary of War on November 26, 1942, at an esti¬
mated cost of $29,230,000; and
The improvement in the Youghiogheny Eiver Basin,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in a report submitted to Congress by the
Secretary of War on March 29, 1943, at an estimated cost
of $37,970,000.
Gebat Hikes Basin
The project for the Panther Mountain Eeservoir on
Moose Elver, New York, is hereby authorized substantially
17
1 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
2 Engineers in House Document N’nmbered 405, Seventy-
3 seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
4 $600,000.
5 The project for flood control on Chittenango Creek and
6 tributaries, New York, is hereby authorized substantially
7 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
S Engineers in House Document Numbered 625, Seventy-
9 seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
10 $111,000.
11 The projects for flood control on Owasco Inlet and Outlet,
12 Montville and Diy Creeks, State Ditch, and Crane Brook,
13 New York, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance
14 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
15 House Document Numbered 815, Seventy-seventh Congress,
16 second session, at an estimated cost of $64,200.
17 COLOEADO EiVEE BaSIN (TeXAS)
18 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
19 authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
20 of August 18, 1941, for the North Concho Biver, Texas, at
21 an estimated cost of $4,800,000.
22 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
23 authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
24 of August 18, 1941, for Pecan Bayou, Texas, at an estimated
25 cost of $1,560,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
18
Beazos Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of Whitney Keservoir in accord¬
ance with the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
for the Brazos Eiver Basin, at an estimated cost of
$15,000,000.
Eio Geande Basin
The project on WiUow Creek for local flood protection
at Creede, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in Senate Docimient hTumbered 104, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $68,500.
San Diego Eivee Basin
The project on the San Diego Eiver for local flood pro¬
tection at San Diego, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 635,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $370,000.
Ventuea Eivee Basin
The projects on the Ventura Eiver and tributaries for
local flood protection at Ventura and Ojai, California, are
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
Numbered 323, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $1,600,000.
Santa Ana Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
the prosecution of the projects approved in the Act of June
22, 1936, as modified by the Act of June 28, 1938, for the
Santa Ana Biver Basin and for the protection of Orange
County, California, including the projects on Lytle and
Cajon Creeks for local flood protection at San Bernardino
and Colton, California, in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers dated
Eebruary 11, 1944.
Los Angeles-San Gabriel Basin and Ballona Creek
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $25,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of August 18, 1941, for Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Bivers and Ballona Creek, California.
Saceamento-San Joaquin Biver Basin
SACRAMENTO EIVEE
The projects for the control of floods and other purposes
on the Sacramento Biver, California, adopted by the Acts
approved March 1, 1917, Ma}^ 15, 1928, August 26, 1937,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
and August 18, 1941, are hereby modified substantially in
accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Engi¬
neers for Elvers and Harbors dated Eebruaiy 7, 1944, with
such modifications thereof as in tlie discretion of the Secre¬
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable,
at an estimated cost of $46,050,000; and in addition to
previous authorizations there is lierehy authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for the prosecution of
the modified projects: Provided, That this modification of
the project shall not be construed to authorize tlie construc¬
tion of a high dam at the Table Mountain site.
SAN .JOAQUIN EIYEE
The ju’oject for the Isabella Eeservoir on the Kern
Eiver for flood control and other purposes in the San Joaquin
Valley, California, is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in his report dated January 26, 1944, contained in
House Document Numbered , Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $6,800,000.
The plan for the Terminus and Success Eeservoirs on
the Kaweah and Tide Eivers for flood control and other
purposes in the San Joaquin Valley, California, in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Flood Control Committee Document Kumhered 1, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, is approved, and there is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
hereby authorized $4,600,000 for initiation and partial
accomplishment of the plan.
T]]e project for flood control and other purposes for the
Kings River and Tulare Lake Basin, California, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the plans con¬
tained in House Document Numbered 630, Seventy-sixth
Congress, third session, with such modifications thereof as in
the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers may be advisable at an estimated cost of $19,700,-
000: Provided, That the conditions of local cooperation
specified in said document shall not apply : Provided further,
That the Secretaiy of War shall make arrangements for pay¬
ment to the United States by the State or other responsible
agency, either in lump sum or annual installments, for con¬
servation storage when used: Provided further. That the
division of costs between flood control, and irrigation and
other water uses shall be determined by the Secretar}^ of War
on the basis of continuing studies by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion, the War Department, and the local organizations.
Tlie plan of improvement for local flood protection on
various streams in the Merced County Stream Group in the
San Joaquin Valley is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 473, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $1,300,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
The plan of improvement for flood control and other pur¬
poses on the Lower San Joaipiin Elver and tributaries, in¬
cluding Tuolumne and Stanislaus Elvers, in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Elood Con¬
trol Committee Document Numbered 2, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, is approved, and there is hereby au¬
thorized $8,000,000 for initiation and partial accomplish¬
ment of the plan. ^
COQUILLE EiVER BaSIN
The project for flood protection on the CoquiUe Elver,
Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 620, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $143,000.
Nehalem Eiver Basin
The project for flood protection on the Nehalem Elver, (
Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 621, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $23,000.
Willamette Eiver Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $20,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Willamette Elver Basin, with
1
‘2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief
of Engineers may he advisable.
Columbia Eivee Basiist
The projects on the Snake Elver for local flood protection
at Heise, Eoberts, and Weiser, Idaho, are hereby authorized,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 452,
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $743,000. - . ^
The projects on the Palouse Elver and tributaries for
local flood protection at Pullman and Colfax, Washington,
are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment numbered 888, Seventy-seventh Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $478,000.
The project on Alkali Canyon for local flood protection
at Arlington, Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document numbered 631, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $118,000.
WiLLAPA Eivee Basin
The project on the Willapa Eiver for local flood pro¬
tection at Eaymond, Washington, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document numbered 701,
1
2
O
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
Sevent3^-seventli Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $127,000.
Sec. 8. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and
directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for
flood control and allied purposes, including channel and major
drainage improvements, to be made under tlie direction of
the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the United States
and its Territorial possessions, which include the following-
named localities, and.-the_Secretary of Agriculture is author¬
ized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and
surveys for run-off and water-flow retardation and soil-erosion
prevention on such drainage areas; the cost thereof to be
paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for
such purposes ; Provided, That after the regular or formal
reports made on any ^amination, survey, project, or work
undeiyway or proposed are submitted to Congress, no supple-
mental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless
authorized by law except that the Secretary of War ma}^
cause a review of any examination or survey to be made
and a report thereon submitted to the Congress if such review
is required by the national defense or by changed physical
or economic conditions: And 'provided further, That the Gov¬
ernment shall not be deemed to have entered upon any
project for the improvement of any w^aterway or harbor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned in this Act until the project for the proposed work
shall have been adopted by law :
Chipola River, Alabama and Florida.
Wacasassa River and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Gilchrest and Levy Counties, Florida.
Oklawaha River and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida.
Scajaquada Creek and its tributaries, New York.
Buffalo River, Minnesota,
Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Marsh River, Minnesota.
Sand HiU River, Minnesota.
Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Roseau River, Minnesota.
Snake River, Miimesota.
Middle River, Minnesota.
Tamarac River, Minnesota.
Two Rivers, Minnesota.
Warroad River and Bull Dog Creek, Minnesota.
Mississippi River and its tributaries, in the County of
Aitkin, Minnesota.
Apple River, Joe Daviess County, Illinois.
Maumee River, Indiana and Ohio.
Indian Creek, Indiana.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Osage Eiver, Missouri and Kansas.
San Rafael Creek and its tributaries, California.
Bayamon and Hondo Rivers and their tributaries,
Municipality of Bayamon, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 9. That the sum of $810,000,000 is hereby author¬
ized to be appropriated for carrying out the improvements
herein, the sum of $10,000,000 additional is authorized to be
appropriated and expended in equal amounts by the Depart¬
ments of War and Agriculture for carrying out any examina¬
tion or survey provided for in this Act and any other Acts
of Congress, to be prosecuted by said Departments. The
sum of $1,500,000 additional is authorized to be appropriated
and expended by the Federal Power Commission for carry¬
ing out any examinations and surveys provided for in this
Act or any other Acts of Congress, to be prosecuted by the
said Federal Power Commission.
Sec. 10. That the following 'works of improvement for
run-off and water-flow retardation, and soil-erosion preven¬
tion, are hereby adopted and authorized in the interest of the
national security and with a view toward an adequate reser¬
voir of useful and worthy public works for the post-war con¬
struction program to be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture, under the direction of the Secretary of Agricul¬
ture, in accordance with the plans of the respective reports
hereinafter designated and subject to the conditions set forth
27
1 tlierein : Provided, That the necessary plans and preliminary
2 work may be prosecuted during the war with funds from
3 appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such works
4 so as to be ready for rapid inauguration of post-war con-
5 struction: Provided further, That when the existing critical
6 situation with respect to materials, equipment, and manpower,
no longer exists and in any event not later than immediately
8 following the cessation of hostihties in the present war, the
^ projects herein authorized shall be initiated as expeditiously
40 as may be consistent with budgetary requirements and shall
44 be prosecuted vigorously during the period of post-war
42 reconversion.
43 Los Angeles Kivee Basin
44 The program on the Los Angeles Kiver watershed is
45 hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom-
46 mendation of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House
47 Document Numbered 426, Seventy-seventh Congress, first
48 session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
49 $8,380,000.
20 Teinity Bivee Basin (Texas)
24 The program on the Trinity Biver watershed is hereby
22 approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
24 Numbered 708, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at
2^ an estimated cost to the United States of $32,000,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Little TALLAiiATcmE Eivee Wateeshed
The program on the Little Tallahatchie Eiver water¬
shed is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the
recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 892, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,221,000.
Coosa Rivee Wateeshed (Above Rome, Geoegia)
The program on the Coosa River watershed above
Rome, Georgia, is hereby approved substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of
Agriculture in House Document Numbered 236, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $1,233,000.
Little Sioux Rivee Wateeshed
The program on the Little Sioux River watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 268, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,280,000.
Potomac Rivee Wateeshed
The program on the Potomac River watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Document Numbered 269, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of $859,000.
OoLOEADO River Watershed (Texas)
The program on those portions of the Colorado River
watershed included in the watersheds of Pecan Bayou, San
Saba River, Brady Creek, and the area tributary to the main
stream of the Colorado River below its confluence with the
Concho River and above the mouth of Pecan Bayou, is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$2,693,000.
Washita River Watershed
The program on the Washita River watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 275, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost to the United States of $11,243,000.
Sec. 11. That the balance remaining from the authoriza¬
tion of $10,000,000 provided in section 7 of the Flood Con¬
trol Act approved June 28, 1938, for the five-year period
ending June 30, 1944, to correlate the program for the im¬
provement of watersheds by the Department of Agriculture
for measures of run-off and water-flow retardation and soil-
30
1 erosion prevention on the watersheds with the program for
2 the improvement of rivers and other waterways by the De-
3 partment of War is hereby reauthorized to be expended dur-
4 ing the post-war period by the Department of Agriculture
5 for the prosecution of the work authorized in section 10 of this
6 Act: Provided, That not more than 20 per centum of the
7 authorization made available herein shall be expended on any
8 one project.
9 Sec. 12. That section 7 of the Act of June 28, 1938
10 (Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress) , is hereby
11 amended by adding at the end of the first sentence thereof
12 the following: “The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
13 authorized in his discretion to undertake such emergency
14 measures for run-off retardation and soil-erosion prevention
15 as may be needed to safeguard hves and property from floods
16 and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire
17 or any other natiu'al element or force has caused a sudden
18 impairment of that watershed : Provided, That not to exceed
19 $100,000 out of any funds heretofore or hereafter appro-
20 priated for the prosecution by the Secretary of Agriculture of
21 works of improvement or measures for run-off and water-
22 flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds
23 may be expended during any one fiscal year for such emer-
24 gency measures.’’
.W. '. .,.»■ • OV-fi" ^ ^ > ■ - • ' - ..- ’ -^ '- ■■ '^■^ ,;
r' -viT "' v ■’‘^' s- :.^ • • ‘ .-^■. .■ . ■■*■• i---'’ ' \ • . ■ ' .
4^V - . '= '► ■ ■ •'-4- - '■ '
^'r^^yx - :■■ •' ■: ' '.^ • '
•‘ .V't*- .--W. - s k'^ • ^‘ ^ . ■» . ' V'** ,. ‘r ‘ -
fe :iit:f ^ : ,,
r. • i- -• '■ i- I • -. •, - '•> ■;• •..-.
•'■•^£1 ^4 4, .>-.V-v- v‘:^; ^ , ,,
J «
% " '
>m-4- '-■ ■■■''• ■ '' ..'^V -r,
--'V i-. •-; - ■■ ;'’i ...r -t. ' ■ ' •iX- .?■ ., ■ <
■ *■/ *1. A'' ' . • •- -VI'.* 1 - , . --ill. ., -'» * 4 . •
f- • .:
>7,. .^■.
w
o
o
■-j
c>
pi
Q w
B S
o
M
CD
o
p
o
o
Pi
O
o
B
i-<
o
w
•'<1
w
p
^ s)
•-s ^
O O O
r- ' Ip
t-i.
P M N
f=> ^ a*
a Cf^
o a
^
O ft)
rt- Hj
ij' W
O'
(S
o
o
P w
p
a
o
m
to
CO
S-
C3 t-"
a o
cr 3
S o
W h-b
l-b O
o
» g.
§ ^
P-itS
a ^
o S
*=*
I o
>
C9
r
r
00
H
to U
coQ
p* O
00 ^
So
i W
^ H
02
OQ
(
X
50
cn (
78th Congress ) HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES j Report
2(1 Session j (No. 1309
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD
WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
March 29, 1944. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Whittington, from the Committee on Flood Control, sub¬
mitted the following
EEPORT
[To accompany H. R. 4485]
The Committee on Flood Control, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 4485) to authorize the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report it favorably to the House and recommend
that it do pass.
In its report of June 9, 1941 (Rept. No. 759, 77th Cong., 1st sess.),
the Flood Control Committee stressed the need for the orderly develop¬
ment of the national program for flood control and recommended addi¬
tional authorizations for the continuation of flood protection works in
the large river basins where general comprehensive plans have been
approved by Congress, and the authorization of certain flood control
projects which had been recommended to Congress by the Chief of
Engineers since the passage of the last preceding Flood Control Act.
The legislation under consideration at that time was enacted by Con¬
gress and became Public Law 228, Seventy-seventh Congress, ap¬
proved August 18, 1941.
Recent Floods
During 1942 and 1943 widespread and damaging floods occurred
in several of the major river basins of the Nation. In addition there
were many flash floods which, while as devastating to the communities
and economic life of the affected areas, did not receive the publicity
given the floods in the industrial regions located in the flood plains
of the principal drainage systems of the country.
A torrential downpour in the headwaters of the Delaware River
in late May of 1942 caused havoc and loss of life in several towns in
Pennsylvania and New York.
2 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
A flood equal to the great flood of 1903 on the Missouri River
occurred in June of 1942 on the lower part of that stream, inundating
tens of thousands of acres of fertile bottom lands. When the flood
waters subsided many of the local levees were breached and others
seriously weakened. The War Department, through the Corps of
Engineers, undertook the task of repairing and restoring these levees
to their former usefulness under the authority of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1941 which this committee wrote into that Flood
Control Act. The flood on the Sacramento River in February of
1942 and the flood on the Missouri River in June of 1942 were the
first major floods requiring Federal assistance in the restoration of
flood-control structures since the passage of that act.
The flood of October 1942 in the Potomac River Basin exceeded
the great flood of March 1936 at some points, particularly in the
Shenandoah Valley. The flood-control structures built in accordance
with the 1936 Flood Control Act, protected the mil tary air bases
at Bolling Field and the Anacostia Naval Air Station, which were
several feet under water during the 1936 flood.
The same storm that swelled the Potomac River also brought floods
to a wide area in the Southeastern States, notably the Rappahannock,
Tombigbee, Coosa, and Pearl Rivers, and tributaries. Rome, Ga.,
and Collinsville, Ala., were safe behind their completed flood protec¬
tion projects.
Six flood-control dams were in full or partial operation above
Pittsburgh when the 1942-43 New Year’s Eve flood hit the upper
Ohio River. These reservoirs reduced the crest stage at Pittsburgh
by 3 feet, prevented property damage there estimated at over
$15,000,000 and lowered flood stages as far downstream as W heeling,
to prevent additional damages estimated at $14,000,000, in that reach
of the Ohio River. The flood continued in major proportions on
down below Cincinnati. As the rain did not cover the lower basin
the cities along the lower river for the most part escaped major flood
damages.
November and December of 1942, and January of 1943 brought
floods to the Pacific coast, including major floods on the Willamette
and Sacramento Rivers, in the Los Angeles area, and in the lower
San Joaquin Valley.
The Missouri River experienced three severe floods in the spring
of 1943, the first of which occurred in April on the upper Missouri,
the second in May and June on the lower river as a part of floods
visiting the Central and Midwestern States, and the third in late
June, reached the highest stages since 1917 at St. Joseph and generally
the highest levels since 1903 from Kansas City to the mouth of the
Osage River. The spring of 1943 also brought major and record-
breaking floods elsewhere in the midwestern part of the country with
excessive rains forcing the Verdigris, Grand, Arkansas, WTiite, St.
Francis, Illinois, and Wabash Rivers out of their banks. These
floods inundated over 7,100,000 acres of land and caused damages
estimated at more than $153,000,000. Seventy-one people lost their
lives in these floods.
The seriousness of the recent floods has tended to focus the atten¬
tion of the country on the need for accelerating the Federal program
for flood protection during the post-war period. Those floods have
demonstrated again that over a large part of our country floods can
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
3
come at any time of the year. They have shown, too, the large bene¬
fits that have resulted from the construction of the Federal flood-
control structures which this committee has recommended and
Congress has authorized.
EMERGENCY REPAIRS
The damage and havoc to flood-control structures built by local
people and organizations for the protection of their homes and prop-
^ erty were so great in recent floods that manifestly the existing authority
•/ of Ihe Federal Government to assist in the repair and restoration of
those works was inadequate to meet the situation.
Accordingly, several bills were introduced in the Congress to author¬
ize the Federal Government to assist in the restoration of flood-control
works. The Flood Control Committee held hearings on these bills.
The Chief of Engineers and members of his staff presented to the com¬
mittee such preluninary estunates as were then available as to the
cost and extent of the required Federal assistance in this restoration
work. The approval on July 12, 1943, of Public Law 138 of the
Seventy-eighth Congress, gave new hope to the people of the stricken
areas. That act authorized an appropriation of $10,000,000 as an
emergency fund to be expended under the direction of the Secretary
of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for the repah,
restoration, and strengthening of levees and other flood-control works
which were threatened or destroyed during the recent floods. The
provisions of that act were in addition and supplemental to the regular
authorizations contained m section 5 of the 1941 Flood Control Act
and section 9 of the act approved June 15, 1936. Funds foi carrying
out the work authorized in Public Law 138 were provided in the
Urgent Deficiencies Appropriation Act, Public Law 132, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, also approved on July 12, 1943. The
funds provided have been expended for emergency repair work at 450
localities, located principally in the upper Mississippi, Missouri,
lUinois, Wabash, Arkansas, and White River Basins.
Need for Additional Authorizations
In approvmg the Flood Control Act of 1941, the President dhected
that no new flood control projects should be undertaken unless they
were of dhect importance to the defense of the f^ation. Under this
policy only 11 new flood-control projects have been mitiated since the
approval of the 1941 act. Of these, 4 dam and reservoir projects
begun to supply power to important war activities were subsequently
stopped; 2 dam and reservoir projects were completed and are now
increasing industrial water supplies to steel-producing communities;
and 5 local protection projects to protect critical manufacturing and
agricultural communities are underway. All of the projects were
thoro uglily investigated by the War Production Board and the War
Food Administration, the Army, or the Navy, and were undertaken
only after strong recommendations by those agencies that they were
needed for the war.
Since Pearl Harbor, the demands of military construction and the
shortage of critical materials, equipment, and labor have forced the
stoppage of numerous projects which could not command sufficiently
4 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
high priority ratings to secure the materials needed for their construc¬
tion. Late in 1942 the War Production Board directed the stoppage
of all Federal public works except war essential projects and since that
time the general flood-control program of construction has been
practically suspended but the completion of reports and plans has
been continued as rapidly as practicable.
Flood disasters in this country are recognized as one of the major
problems affecting the welfare and security of the entire Nation. The
committee believes that it is essential to undertake the preparation of
detailed plans now, in order that there will be no long period of
preparation, while a few engineers compute stresses and draw plans
and workers stand idle. In conformity with the President’s sugges¬
tion, it is prudent to have a resei voir of worthy public works authorized
and ready to be placed under construction. This suggestion will re¬
quire the completion of many designs and much concentrated engi¬
neering work in the coming months.
Those who stay in this country and are suffering relatively little
inconvenience in comparison with the men who are fighting, must con¬
cern themselves with the problems of employing the returning soldiers
on useful and meritorious work. The existing authorized backlog of
flood-control construction, although equivalent to several years of
normal peacetime work is insufficient in size to meet the needs of a
large post-war construction program. In fact, the existing backlog is
not large enough to permit efficient and economical procedure on a
purely peacetime basis. Additional authorizations for comprehensive
basin plans should be made in order that the works already partially
constructed in those basins shall be fully protected by the completed
plans. The full benefits of these integrated basin plans will, of course,
not be enjoyed until the comprehensive plans are completed as designed.
Additional authorizations for which legislation is needed, include
some especially meritorious flood-control improvements. If human
beings are going to live and carry on their daily activities in the fertile
valleys of our rivers, their lives and property must be protected.
Local inhabitants and our returning soldiers must have a sense of
security if they are going to live in peace, build permanent homes, and
contribute their share to the national welfare. Moreover, industry
cannot afford to venture into an area where overflow is expected
annually, regardless of how attractive other conditions may be.
It is impractical • to prepare construction plans for flood-control
projects until those projects have been authorized by Congress. It
is, therefore, important that increases in authorizations be made
available at this time for the major river basins where Congress has
heretofore approved comprehensive plans for flood control and that
the additional new projects recommended by the Chief of Engineers
in reports to Congress since the enactment of the 1941 act be author¬
ized for construction.
Model of the Mississippi River Basin
For the purpose of determining for the future the most effective
method of reservoir operation for flood control in the great central
basin of the United States, the Chief of Engineers, Maj. Gen. Eugene
Reybold, has planned and initiated the construction of a large “reser¬
voir operation model” near Clinton, Miss., about 9 miles west of
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 5
Jackson, Miss. The director of the United States Waterways Experi¬
ment Station at Vicksburg, Miss., is in charge of the work under the
supervision of the president of the Misissippi River Commission.
The model which will be 4,500 feet by 3,500 feet will require about
200 acres, and will portray the Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri,
Arkansas, White, and Red Rivers, and their principal tributaries
embracing an area extending from the Rocky Mountains to the
Appalachians and from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico.
Existing and proposed flood-control reservoirs, about 150 in munber,
as well as levees, dikes, floodways, and other pertinent flood-control
works will be included in the model, in order to provide a means of
studying the complexities of reservoir operation. Miniature floods
of known magnitudes will be run through the model, registered by
some 1,500 sensitive electrically controlled gages, and recorded at the
same central control points from which the miniature reservoirs will
be operated. The model will indicate relations and relative condi¬
tions, step by step, as they develop and should prove of great value
in establishing full scale operation procedure for actual reservoirs at
times of actual floods. Construction of this model is really a post¬
war project, but a certain amount of preliminary work is now being
done with prisoner-of-war labor. The size and scope of this experi¬
ment by scale is without precedent, but so are the gigantic flood-
control plans for the Mississippi Basin, plans that will represent an
ultimate Federal investment of between one and two billions of dollars.
The experiments that have been conducted by the United States
Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Miss., during the 13
years of its existence have added greatly to scientific knowledge and
have saved the Government large sums of money and we agree with
General Reybold in anticipating increased knowledge and savings as
a result of the use of the large "reservoir operation model” near
Clinton, Miss.
The Bill
The enactment of the bill (H. R. 4485) will continue the national
flood-control policy and program initiated by the act of 1936 and ex¬
tended by subsequent acts of Congress, including the acts of 1937,
1938, 1939, and 1941.
The Congress and the country are agreed that the planning and
execution of flood-control projects should be a function of the Corps
, pf Engineers of the United States Army, and that the investigations
kof watersheds and measures for run-off and waterfiow retardation and
soil-erosion prevention should be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture. The bill reaffirms this to be the policy of the United
States and introduces certain modifications in administrative proce¬
dure which will aid in carrying out the flood-control program. The
bill constitutes legislative planning for post-war construction.
Since the Flood Control Act of 1941, a number of reports on surveys
authorized by Congress have been completed and reviewed by the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and reports on flood-
control projects with favorable recommendations have been trans¬
mitted to Congress. The plans are comprehensive in scope and con¬
template the most practicable and economical method of providing
flood control and, where practicable, of conserving the flood waters
for beneficial uses. In each case, they have been planned with a view
6 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
to producing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The
plans uiclude multiple-use reservoirs which will permit the develop¬
ment of economical hydroelectric power in addition to providing
storage for flood control, irrigation, water supply, pollution control,
and other purposes.
The bill provides additional authorizations for the prosecution of
approved comprehensive plans and it authorizes a number of indi¬
vidual projects which have been found economically feasible and
deshable. It continues the procedure of authorizing additional
surveys and examinations lor flood control and finally authorizes the
sum of $810,000,000, to be appropriated for carrying out its purposes
(For details of status of authorizations, see p. 8.)
The Flood Control Committee has held hearings on all of the
projects contained in H. R. 4485, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, and has carefully considered the testimony presented. All
of the projects contained in this bill have the approval of the Chief
of Engineers of the United States Army.
Public hearings were conducted May 13, 1943, June 1 to 11, 1943,
and are published as volume 1. Public hearings were also conducted
February 1 to 23, 1944, and are published as volume 2. Both vol¬
umes are available.
Analysis by Sections
SECTION 1. POLICY
Section 1 is similar to existing law, and clarifies the language
contained in the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and subsequent acts to
show clearly that flood control shall be construed to include channel
and major drainage improvements. It reaffirms the declaration of
policy respecting flood control and provides for investigation, plan¬
ning, and prosecution by the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army of flood control and allied works, and investigations of water¬
sheds and measures for rim-ofl" and water-flow retardation and soil-
erosion prevention by the Department of Agriculture.
SECTION 2, LOCAL COOPERATION
Section 2 is identical with existing law. It restates the policy
regarding requirements of local cooperation.
SECTION 3. EECRE.^-TIONAL FACILITIES
To date the Corps of Engineers has placed in operation some 42
dam and reservoir projects widely dispersed throughout the United
States. A large number of these reservoirs present opportunities for
recreational development of widespread interest and benefit, at very
little cost. At the present time there is no authority to expend the
small amounts of funds needed to make the recreation and conserva¬
tion values at these reservoirs fully available. This committee is of
the opinion that where practicabie, without reducing flood-control
benefits, projects should be fully utilized to provide recreational
facilities for the benefit of the general public.
Section 3 authorizes the Chief of Engineers to construct, maintain,
and operate recreation and conservation facilities, or to permit the
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 7
construction, maintenance or operation of such facilities and it would
authorize the Secretary of War to grant leases of lands, structures, or
facilities in the reservoir areas for such periods and upon such terms
as he may deem reasonable. Existing law, applicable to flood-control
works, limits the period of the lease of physical property to a maximum
of 5 years. The committee feels that such a limitation on the length
of leases for the development of recreational areas at flood-control
reservoirs would not be in the public interest and recommends the
removal of this restriction with respect to leases of Federal property
at reservoirs for recreational facilities. This section also provides
that all moneys received for such leases or privileges shall be de¬
posited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
SECTION 4. SALE OF STORED WATER
Recently in the development of plans for reservoirs, there have
been several requests for the purchase of water for municipal and
industrial purposes. Under existing law, the War Department is
authorized to modify plans for any reservoir authorized by Congress
to provide additional storage capacity for domestic water supply
or other conservation storage provided that the cost of such increased
storage is contributed by local agencies. In several cases small
communities have experienced difficulty in providing the large lump¬
sum contributions prior to construction required by existing law,
and have expressed a desire to purchase stored water at a unit price
per miillion gallons. In several other cases requests have been
received for the purchase of stored water after a dam and reservoir
project has been completed. The committee, believing that full
beneficial use should be made of all Federal projects, is of the opinion
that the Secretary' of War should be authorized to sell to States,
municipalities, private concerns, or individuals at such prices and on
such terms as he may deem reasonable, surplus water that may be
available at any reservoir under the control of the War Department.
Suitable language has been written into the, bill to accomplish this
purpose; all moneys received from such sales to be deposited in the
Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Operation of Multiple-Purpose Reservoirs
SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION OF FLOOD CONTROL AND
NAVIGATION STORAGE
The committee believes that recent experiences in the operation of
multiple-purpose reservoirs during major floods has demonstrated
that to assure the expected flood-control benefits, reservoirs con¬
structed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the basis
of flood control benefits should have their flood-control features oper¬
ated under the supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War.
The bill, therefore, provides that it shall be the duty of the Secretary
of War to prescribe regulations for the use of storage available for
flood control or navigation at all reservoirs constructed wholly or in
part with Federal funds provided on the basis of such purposes and
requires that the operation of any such project shall be in accordance
with such regulations.
8 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION OF IRRIGATION STORAGE
The construction of multiple-purpose reservoirs is in the public in¬
terest. Sound public policy requires not only that flood-control stor¬
age be under the supervision of the Secretary of War and the Chief of
Engineers but also that storage for the reclamation of arid lands be
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior.
The committee recognizes that good administration demands that
projects be built by the agency having the dominant interest with
suitable provisions for safeguarding the interests of other agencies.
Accordingly, the bill provides that whenever in the opinion of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers any dam and reservoii*
project operated under the direction of the Secretary of War can be
consistently used for reclamation of arid lands, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regulations for the use of the
storage available for such purposes, and the operation of any such
project shall be in accordance with such regulation. Such amounts as
the Secretarv of the Interior may deem reasonable shall be charged
for the use of such stored water; the moneys received to be deposited
into the Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous receipts.
SECTION 7. AUTHORIZATION
Section 7 adopts and authorizes the following improvements, as set
forth in the bill, for post-war construction with provisions for the
preparation of necessary plans, speciheations, and preliminary work
during the war.
Connecticut River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 412, 74tli Cong.; H. Doc. No. 455, 75tli Cong.; H. Doc. Nos. 653
and 724, 76th Cong.)
Connecticut River floods of 1927 and 1936 caused direct damages
estimated at $60,000,000, drastic depreciation in property values,
shut-dowuis of industrial plants, widespread distress, and loss of lives
in four New England States. With a view to relieving flood hazards
in this valley. Congress, by the act of June 22, 1936, authorized a
number of flood-control projects, and in the act of June 28, 1938,
approved a general comprehensive plan for flood control and other
purposes for the Connecticut River Basin. The flood of September
1938 indicated the desirability of making certain modifications in the
approved plan, and the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941,
incorporated those modifications in that plan. Public Law 759,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, authorized the construc¬
tion of the Gully Brook conduit at Hartford, Comi., as a desirable
modification to the Hartford project.
Tlie modified comprehensive plan provides for the construction of
20 reservoirs and 10 local protection projects. The Birch Hill and
Knightville Reservoirs in Massachusetts, and the Surry Mountain
Reservoir in New Hampshire have been completed except for minor
work which has been deferred during the war. Local protection
projects at Northampton, Springfield, and West Springfield, Mass.,
and East Hartford, Conn., have been completed, except for some
minor work at Springfield and for foundation treatment of a portion
of the dike at West Springfield. The project at Chicopee, Mass., is
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 9
about 85 percent complete, with a short section of dike and a pump¬
ing station still to be completed. The latter work has been deferred
dm-ing the war. The north unit of the Holyoke project is complete,
while the south unit has been deferred during the war.
The Hartford project is about 90 percent complete, with portions
of the pumping stations still to be completed. Plans and specifica¬
tions are nearing completion for the Tully Reservoir in Massachusetts
and the Union Village Reservoir in Vermont; and they are under
way for the Claremont and Williamsville Reservoirs in New Hamp¬
shire and Vermont, respectively; and for local protection works at
Springdale and Riverdale, Mass., and at Winsted, Conn.
Sufficient authority is available for the completion of the local
protection works contained in the approved plan. However, approxi¬
mately $33,200,000 of additional authorization will be required to
complete the system of reservoirs, based on pre-war cost estimates.
The bill proposes an increase in authorization of $30,000,000, so that
additional reservoirs can be initiated in the period immediately follow¬
ing the cessation of hostilities. Recognizing that Vermont does not
desire a large reservoir for multiple-purpose use on the West River,
the bill contains a proviso that neither the proposed authorization
nor previous authorizations shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a high dam at the Williamsville site.
Thames River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 885, 76th Cong., 3d sess.)
The Thames River Basin has suffered severe flood damages, the
most recent of which occurred in 1936 and 1938. The damages from
these two floods were estimated at $19,000,000. In order to reduce
the flood hazard in this valley. Congress, by the act of August 18,
1941, authorized a comprehensive plan for flood control in the Thames
River Basin at an estimated cost to the United States of $13,200,000,
and authorized $6,000,000 for the initiation and partial accomplish¬
ment of this plan. The approved plan consists of seven reservoirs
supplemented b}^ local channel improvement at Norwich, Conn.
Funds have been allotted for the preparation of construction draw¬
ings and specifications for the Norwich Channel improvement and
for the Mansfield Hollow Reservoir in Connecticut and that work is
under way.
The bill proposes authorization for the completion of the approved
plan in the estimated additional amount of $7,200,000. This will
enable the Corps of Engineers to prepare designs and specifications
for the entfie comprehensive plan and to initiate construction on all
of those projects promptly in the post-war period.
Housatonic River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 338, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Housatonic River watershed comprises 1,945 square miles in
western Massachusetts and Connecticut and the extreme eastern part
of New York. Major floods have occurred in the basin nine times
since 1869, the most recent occurrences being in March 1936 and
September 1938, with damages estimated at $1,096,000 and $2,309,000,
respectively. The area contains important industrial centers manu-
H. Kept. 1309, 78-2 - 2
10 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
facturing metal and rubber products, machinery, textiles, and clothing,
and includes many industries engaged in war work.
The plan recommended by the Chief of Engineers to control floods
in this basin provides for the construction of a reservoir on the Nauga¬
tuck River about 1.1 miles above Tliomaston, Conn., at an estimated
cost of $5,151,000. The reservoh will have a storage capacity of
41,500 acre-feet and would control the run-off from a drainage area of
97 square miles which is 57 percent of the drainage area above Water-
bury. Conn., the principal damage center in the basin. The project
will eliminate 97 percent of the damage sustained at Waterbury during
a recurrence of the worst flood of record. In addition, there will be
unevaluated benefits, including protection of lives, elimination of inter¬
ruption to industrial pursuits, and enhancement in property value.
The committee notes that the tangible benefits exceed the cost and
that in addition there are intangible benefits which, though not sus¬
ceptible to evaluation affect the lives and security of the residents in
this area, and accordingly recommends that this project be adopted as
proposed bj the Chief of Engineers.
Susquehanna River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 702, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Susquehanna River is formed by the confluence of its north and
west branches near Sunbury, Pa., and flows southeasterly 123 miles to
the head of Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Md. It drains a
generally rugged and mountainous area of .27,500 square miles lying
in south central New York, central Pennsylvania, and northeast
Maryland.
Floods cause great damage to property and improvements through¬
out the basin. Those of most recent occurrence include the flood of
1935 which caused damage estimated at $33,000,000 in the upper
watershed of North Branch and the great flood of 1936 which caused
damage estimated at $67,000,000 throughout the entire basin. In
order to relieve the flood hazard in this basin. Congress, in the Flood
Control Act of June 22, 1936, authorized a general plan consisting
of 7 detention reservoirs and dikes and channel improvements to
protect 13 towns in southern New York and eastern Pennsylvania.
In addition, that act authorized individual local protection projects
at 16 other localities throughout the Susquehanna Basin. The Flood
Control Act approved August 18, 1941, modified the previous author¬
ization for the Sunbury, Pa., project and the general plan for southern
New York and eastern Pennsylvania to include the Lackawanna
River.
Pursuant to these authorizations, the War Department has con¬
structed the reservoirs at Whitney Point and Arkport, N. Y., and
has completed plans and specifications for the Almond Reservoir.
The local protection project at 'Oxford, N. Y., has been completed,
and the projects for Painted Post, Avoca,- Binghamton , Corning, and
Hornell are substantially complete. The projects at Lisle and Elmira,
N. Y., are 45 percent and 20 percent complete, respectively. The
remaining work on the latter two projects has been deferred during
the war. Detailed plans for other reservoirs and the remaining local
protection works in the general plan are in preparation, in order that
those projects can be placed under way when materials, equipment,
and labor are again available for the construction of public works.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
11
With respect to the individual projects authorized in the Flood
Control Act approved June 22, 1936, the works at Wilkes-Barre-Han-
over township, Pennsylvania; Kingston-Edwardsville, Pa.; and York,
Pa. ; are substantially complete. In addition, work was in progress at
Williamsport and Plymouth, Pa., but has been suspended in accord¬
ance with a directive from the War Production Board, stopping all
construction on public works projects not directly essential to the war
effort. Plans and specifications are in preparation for the project
at Sunbury, Pa.
The plan recommended by the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, provides for
modification of the general plan of improvement for southern New
York and eastern Pennsylvania, as authorized by the act of June 22,
1936, to include therein reservoirs at South Plymouth and Gene-
gantslet on tributaries of the Chenango River, at an estimated cost of
$4,755,000; modification of the project at Harrisburg, Pa., authorized
by the act of June 22, 1936, to provide for the construction of levees,
concrete flood walls, channel diversion, and the raising and enlarging
of an existing dam, all at an estimated cost to the United States of
$2,227,000; authorization of a local protection project at Tyrone, Pa.,
on the Little Juniata River, Pa., consisting of levees, flood walls,
channel improvement, and a pressure conduit, all at an estimated
cost to the United States of $1,392,000; and authorization for the
Raystown Reservoir on the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River,
Pa., for flood control, the development of hydroelectric power and
other purposes, at an estimated cost of $21,500,000.
The committee approve the modifications of existing projects as
recommended by the Chief of Engineers and they recommend author¬
ization of the Tyrone project and approval of the plan for Raystown
Reservoir with authorization of $2,000,000 for initiation and partial
accomplishment of that reservoir.
Mobile River Basin — Alabama-Coosa River Basin
ALLATOONA RESERVOIR, ETOWAH RIVER, GA.
(H. Doc. No. 674, 76th Cong., Sdsess.)
The Etowah and Oostanaula Rivers join at Rome, Ga., to form the
Coosa River. The upper Coosa Basin, including the valley of the
Etowah, is primarily an agricultural area, but due to its location and
natural resources, it is becoming of increasing industrial importance.
Production of textile, steel, and chemical products is expanding as a
result of the war program. A serious flood situation exists at Rome
where the business section and most of the residential section are
subject to recurring overflows. Although a part of the residential
section has been given partial protection by levees under authority
of the Flood Control Act of 1936, these works will not protect against
major floods and they afford no protection to the basin generally.
The plan approved in the 1941 Flood Control Act provides for con¬
struction of a reservoir at the Allatoona site on the Etowah River, 38
miles above Rome for flood control, regulation of stream flow, and
power development. The authorized dam will provide practically
complete protection between the site and Rome, will protect Rome
against all but the most infrequent major floods, will reduce flood
12 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
damages on the Coosa River below Rome, will be of substantial value
to further navigation development, and v/ill provide a large block of
economical hydroelectric power which can be quickly absorbed by the
expanding industrial requirements of the region. The project was
approved by the act approved August 18, 1941, and $3,000,000 was
authorized for its initiation and partial accomplishment.
In late 1941 the War Production Board requested immediate con¬
struction of Allatoona Dam to produce power for the war activities
in the area and Congress appropriated funds, but before work was
actually begun, a change of program caused the project to be deferred.
The field uivestigations preparatory to actual construction have been
completed and the plans and specifications for the entire Allatoona
project, mcluding jiower generatmg facilities, are nearly complete.
The committee reaffirms its approval of the Allatoona Reservoir and
recommends additional authorization for completion of the project
in the estimated amount of $14,400,000.
Lower Mississippi River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 509, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Lower Mississippi River Basin is the alluvial valley of the
Mississippi River which extends fro.m Cape Girardeau, Mo., to the
Gulf of Mexico and contains some 20,000,000 acres in the States of
Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ai-kansas, Mississippi, and
Louisiana. A Federal project for flood control of the Mississippi
River in its alluvial valley and for its improvement fro.m the Head of
Passes to Cape Girardeau, Mo., was adopted by the Flood Control
Act approved May 15, 1928, and has been amended and extended
by subsequent acts of Congress. The authorized navigation channel
between Baton Rouge, La., and Cairo, Ill., is not less than 9 feet in
depth and 300 feet in width. Below Baton Rouge the channel is not
less than 35 feet in depth and 500 feet in width. Flood control of the
lower Mississippi River and its improvement for navigation are
inseparable since much of the work prosecuted under the authorized
project serves both purposes and no specific work for either flood con¬
trol or navigation is undertaken without carefully analyzing its effect
on both phases of the project.
In the spring of 1943, the Committee on Commerce of the Senate
and this committee adopted resolutions requesting the Chief of Engi¬
neers to review the navigation provisions of the project for the im-
prove.ment of the Mississippi River adopted by the act of May 15,
1928, as amended, with a view to determining the advisability, in the
interest of navigation and flood control, of increasing the depth of the
navigation channel from 9 feet to 12 feet between Cairo, Ill., and
Baton Rouge, La. A report in response to these resolutions has been
prepared by the Mississippi Rivej Commission, concurred in by the
Chief of Engineers, and transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of
War.
The report quotes the following statement from House. Document
No. 90, Seventieth Congi’ess, which was enacted into law by the
act of May 15, 1928, and which is as sound today as when VTitten.
131. Channel stabilization. Since the levees within the limits of this project
are to be greatly enlarged, they will be much more expensive than heretofore.
. RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 13
so Something mu^t be done to avoid the frequent moving of them from the
proximity of caving banks. In a,ddition, the river cannot be regulated for low-
water navigation until the banks are made stable, this both to keep the channel
in one place and to stop the enormous dumping of earth into the river by bank
caving. A general bank protection scheme must be carried out * * *
The Mississippi River Commission says that, with the great Mis¬
sissippi River levee system rapidly approaching completion, the con¬
trol of the meander of the river has become the most urgent and diffi¬
cult problem confronting those responsible for the safety of the valley
and the maintenance of free, easy, and unobstructed navigation
channels below Cairo. Stabilization of banks will reduce the sand
in motion, will fix the locations of crossings, and will reduce the amount
of dredging required to maintain the navigation channel. It is.
estimated that the existing authorization for maintenance dredging
will be ample to secure a minimum low-water depth of 12 feet after
stabilization work is completed. A certain amount of improvement
dredging and low dikes will be required to produce the best alinement
and to fix the low- water channel in certain reaches before bank
stabilization is undertaken.
The report concludes that the time has now arrived in the develop¬
ment of the alluvial valley of the Mississippi for undertaking to hold
the river’s meander within narrow limits as rapidly as funds can be
made available: that stabilization of the river is necessary in order
to retain reduction in flood heights obtamed by channel rectification,
and is advisable for the purpose of safeguarding the main Mississippi
River levees; and that such stabilization may materially increase the
flood-carrying capacity of the river as well as provide a minimum
depth of 12 feet at low water for navigation. The estimated cost
of the plan of improvement is $200,000,000, of which about four-
fifths would be required for bank stabilization and one-fifth for im¬
provement dredging and low dikes. It is estimated that the work
would extend over a period of years.
The Chief of Engineers concurs with the Mississippi River Com¬
mission and recommends that the existing project for flood control,
Mississippi River and tributaries, be modified to authorize a naviga¬
tion channel 12 feet deep and 300 feet wide at low water between
Cairo, Ill., and Baton Rouge, La., and the execution, in the interest
of navigation and flood control of a channel improvement and stabili¬
zation program at an estimated cost, over that now" authorized, of
$200,000,000.
The committee believes that the great investments made by the
local people and the Government in the levee system; the constantly
increasing population and property values protected by the levees;
and the benefits accruing to the country as a wdiole from the naviga¬
tion of the river, amply justify the further expenditures required and
it recommends modification of the existing project in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, at an estimated
additional cost of $200,000,000.
Boeuf and Tensas River Basin
(S. Doc. No. 151, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon are located in
Arkansas and Louisiana and embrace that part of the alluvial valley
of the Mississippi River lying south of the Arkansas River, west of the
14 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Mississippi River, north of the Red River backwater area, and east of
the Ouachita River and Bayou Bartholomew. This area has been
protected against Alississippi River floods by the levees and other
works constructed under the Flood Control Act approved Alay 15,
1928, as amended. However, the area is subject to overflow from the
above-named streams since their channels are obstructed with debris
and undergrowth and are inadequate to discharge headwater run-off.
Furthermore, local interests have constructed drainage ditches into the
upper end of the basin, thus increasing the total inflow into the basin
without improving the conditions of outflow. It is estimated that
channel improvements of the main streams in the basin will wholly
or partially eliminate the flooding now suffered.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated this situation, in response
to a resolution of the Committee on Commerce of the Senate, and he
concurs in the recommendation of the Mississippi River Commission
that the improvements recommended for the channels of these streams
should be undertaken at an estimated cost of $5,013,000.
The committee followed the recommendation of the report and in¬
cluded authorization for this work in the bill.
Yazoo River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 516, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Big Sunflower, Little Sunflower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver
Rivers, and Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal, Bogue Phalia, Ditchlow
Bayou, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou are all tributaries of the Yazoo
River, which enters the lower Mississippi River near Vicksburg, Aliss,
Prior to the development of the AHssissippi River levee system, the
area drained by these streams was subject to overflow. The con¬
struction of Mississippi River levees under the act of May 15, 1928,
now gives protection against Mississippi River floods and the com¬
pletion of the Yazoo headwater project and the Ynzoo backwater
project will give protection to most of the area against Yazoo River
floods and Mississippi River backwater. However the area will
remain subject to flood damage due to the inadequate capacities
of the local streams which have become obstructed with undergrowth
and debris. Conditions on these streams are similar to those existing
on the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Alacon, discussed in the
preceding item.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated this situation in response
to a resolution of the committee and he concurs in the recommendation
of the president of the Mississippi River Commission that channel
improvements on the streams named be undertaken to remedy this
flood situation at an estimated cost of $3,752,000.
The committee followed the recommendation of the report of the
Chief of Engineers and included this item in the bill.
YAZOO BACKWATER AREA
(H. Doc. No. 359, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
A project for the protection of the Yazoo backwater area was recom¬
mended in House Document No. 359, Seventy-seventh Congress,
first session, and authorized in the Flood Control Act approved August
18, 1941. It involves the construction of a levee from the lower end
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 15
of the Mississippi River levee above Vicksburg northward along the
west bank of the Yazoo River to a connection in the vicinity of Yazoo
City with the Yazoo River levee authorized by the existmg project
for protection against headwater floods of the Yazoo River system.
The authorization in the 1941 act permitted adjustment in the dis¬
cretion of the Chief of Engineers of the grades of existing levees in the
backwater area on the east bank of the YazoO River. Plowever, there
is a large area on the east bank of the Yazoo River below Satartia
that does not have existing levees, for which protection was not pro¬
vided by the 1941 act and on which floods may be increased by con¬
struction of the authorized backwater levee. In response to questions
asked by the committee, the president of the Mississippi River Com¬
mission gave the factual data with respect to the acreage in this area
that could be protected and the estimated cost of providing protection.
A study of these data shows that if the Satartia area or the Satartia
area plus its extension is given protection by works constructed as a
part of the authorized Yazoo backwater project, the ratio of benefits
to costs would be favorable and the cost per acre for the entire im¬
provement would be substantially less than the unit costs of similar
backwater protection that has been authorized elsewhere in the
alluvial valley of the Mississippi River.
The committee, has therefore, included an item in the bill amending
the backwater project as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941,
to authorize the Chief of Engineers, in his discretion, to include im¬
provements for the protection of the Satartia area at an estimated
additional cost of $1,061,000, or, in his discretion, to include improve¬
ments for the protection of the Satartia area plus its extension at an
estimated cost of $1,952,000.
Red-Ouachita River Basin
LITTLE MISSOURI RIVER, ARK.
(H. Doc. No. 837, 76th Cong., 3d sess.)
The Little Missouri River rises in Polk County, Ark., in the southern
slopes of the Missouri Mountains, flows generally southeast for a
distance of 147 miles and enters the Ouachita River 28 miles above
Camden, Ark. Large floods which occur at comparatively frequent
intervals adversely affect the agricultural activities of the inhabitants
of this basin, consisting of general farming and fruit culture, as well
as the industrial activities, which include sawmills, cotton gins,
preparation and processing of fruits, and some mineral and petroleum
production. For the protection and improvement of this watershed,
the Congress has adopted a project consisting of the construction of
the Narrows Reservoir and powerhouse and improvement of channels
of Little Missouri River, Terre Noire Creek, Ozan Creek, and for the
repair of levees along Terre Noire Creek, at an estimated first cost to
the United States of $6,800,000 and authorized the appropriation of
$3,000,000 for the initiation and partial accomplishment of that plan.
The bill proposes an additional authorization for the completion of
the plan at an estimated cost of $3,800,000.
16 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Arkansas River Basin
(Flood Control Committee Doc. No. 1, 75th Cong., H. Doc. No. 717, 77th Cong.,
2d sess., and H. Doc. No. 186, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
Destructive floods occur in almost all parts of this extensive basin
and flood flows from the Arkansas River contribute laregly to floods
in the lower Mississippi Valley. The flood in May and June of 1943,
inundated some 1,500,000 acres and caused direct damages estimated
at $33,000,000. Twenty-three lives were lost. The storms causing
this flood began on May 7, 1943, and continued, with a pause between
May 11 and May 14, until May 20, 1943. They centered near
Webbers Falls, Okla., with 13.64 inches of precipitation for the first
phase and near Joplin, Mo., with 16.41 inches total precipitation for
the second phase.
Congress, in the Flood Control Act of 1936, authorized a number of
reservoirs and local flood-protection works for the Arkansas River
Basin and by the Flood Control Act of 1938 approved a general
comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes and author¬
ized $21,000,000 for initiation and partial accomplishment of the
work. I'hat plan was modified and extended by the Flood Control
Act approved August 18, 1941, which authorized an additional
$29,000,000 for the prosecution of the approved plan.
Pursuant to these authorizations, the War Department has com¬
pleted Conchas Dam and Reservoir on the South Canadian River in
New Mexico, the Fort Supply Dam and Reservoir on the North
Canadian River in Oklahoma, the Great Salt Plains Reservoir on the
Salt Fork of the Arkansas River in Oklahoma, and the Nimrod Reser¬
voir in Arkansas, and it has initiated construction on three reservoirs;
nemsly, the Blue Mountain Reservoir on the Petit Jean River in
Arkansas, the Canton Reservoir on the North Canadian River in
Oklahoma, and the John Martin Reservoir on the Arkansas River in
Colorado. The Blue Mountain, Canton, and John Martin Reservoirs
were substantially 73 percent, 20 percent, and 90 percent complete,
respectively, when further work on those projects was suspended, in
accordance with a directive of the War Production Board. The John
Martin Reservoir, however, is in partial operation. Detailed plans for
other reservoirs in the approved plan and for a number of local pro¬
tection projects authorized in the various flood-control acts are in
preparation in order that those projects can be placed under way when
the present restrictions on Federal public works have been lifted.
The increased activities in eastern Oklahoma and southeastern
Kansas resulting from the expanding war industries in that ar^a,
emphasize the need for providing adequate flood control in the
Arkansas River Basin at the earliest practicable date. Accordingly,
the bill provides an additional authorization of $35,000,000 for the
prosecution of the comprehensive plan.
ARKANSAS RIVER, MAIN STEM FROM GREAT BEND, KANS., TO PINE BLUFF, ARK.
(H. Doc. No. 447, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Following the destructive floods along the Arkansas River in May
and June of 1943, the Flood Control Committee adopted a resolution
requesting the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review
HESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
17
the previous reports on tlic Arkansas River, with a view to deterniiii-
ing whether any modifications shoidd be made therein at this time
with respect to local flood protection along the main stem of the
Arkansas River.
The report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and
of the Cliief of Engineers, in response to that resolution has been
submitted to the Congress and has been carefvdly considered by this
coimnittee. The report recommends the following local works of
improvement for flood control along the main stem of the Ai’kansas
River;
Additional entimated
Modifications of the following'projects; ' states
Tulsa and West Tulsa, authorized by the act approved Aug. 18,
1941 _ _ $133,000
Near Fort Gibson, Okla., authorized by the act approved June
22, 1936 _ _ 260, 100
Crawford County levee district in Arkansas, authorized by the
act approved Aug. 18, 1941 _ 1, 546, 000
Near Dardanelle, Ark., authorized bv the act approved June 22,
1936 _ 7 _ 122,500
West of Morrilton, Ark., authorized bv the act approved June
22,1936 _ 1 _ 855,000
Little Rock, Ark., authorized by the act approved June 22, 1936. 465, 200
South bank of the Arkansa.s River between Little Rock and Pine
Bluff, authorized by the act approved Aug. 18, 1941 _ 790, 000
Total _ 4, 171, 800
Estimated cost to the
Construction of projects at the following localities: United states
Jenks, Okla _ $264, 000
Dirty Creek Bottom area, Oklahoma _ 421, 000
Tucker Lake Bottom area, Oklahoma _ 485, 000
Braden Bottom area, Oklahoma _ 192, 000
Big Skin Bayou-Camp Creek Bottom area, Oklahoma _ 349, 000
Moffett Bottom area, Oklahoma _ 957, 000
Fort Smith, Ark _ 898, 600
Van Buren, Ark _ 329, 000
McLean Bottom levee district No. 3, Arkansas _ 517, 000
Arkansas River, Conway County levee district No. 6, Arkansas. 371, 000
Conway County levee districts ~Nos. 1, 2, and 8, Arkansas _ 1, 005, 000
Roland drainage district, Arkansas..- _ 339, 000
Total _ 6, 127, 600
Grand total _ 10, 299, 400
In the interest of preventing flood losses and insuring the welfare of
the people residing in this area, the committee recommends that these
projects be adopted at an estimated additional cost to the United
States of $10,299,400.
FOUNTAINE QUE BOUILLE RIVER
(H. Doc. No. 186, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Fountaine Quo Bouille (Fountain) River is formed at Colorado
Springs, Colo., by the confluence of Fountain and Monument Creeks
and flows 52 miles in a meandering southwesterly direction to join the
Arkansas River at Pueblo, Colo., about 1,280 miles upstream from the
mouth of the latter. Colorado Springs, with a population of 33,237,
is the largest city lying wholly within the basin and is one of the
H. Kept. 1309, 78-2 - .3
18 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
principal damage centers in the basin. That portion of Colorado
Springs and its suburbs in the overflow area of Monument Creek and
Fountain River comprises an area of 670 acres, of which 505 acres
are occupied by railway tracks and yards, athletic stadiums, churches,
residences, and small business and industrial establishments. Another
area overflowed by storm run-off extends from the mouth of Temple¬
ton Gap to the confluence of Shooks Run with the Fountain River
and comprises an area of 1,100 acres, of which about 400 acres are
within the limits of Colorado Springs and the adjacent community of
Fapeton, while the remaining 700 acres are largely agricultural lands
lying outside of the developed area of these two communities. Ten
major floods have been reported in the past 76 years. The most
severe flood on Templeton Gap occurred in July of 1932 and caused
property damage estimated at $145,800.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood situation in the
Fountain River Basin in response to an authorization contained in
the 1937 Flood Control Act and he has submitted his report to
Congress.. He finds that protection can be provided at Colorado
Springs, Colo., against a flood 45 percent greater than the maximum
of record by the construction of a paved floodway from the outlet of
the Gap to Monument Creek at a point just upstream from the
Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad bridge. The estimated
cost of the project to the United States is $500,000.
The committee believes that the intangible benefits resulting from
the correction of this menace, in addition to the tangible benefits are
sufficient to justify the construction of the project and has, therefore,
included in the bill authorization for this work.
PUEGATOIRE (PICKET WIRE) RIVER, COLO.
(H. Doc. No. 387, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Purgatoire River is formed by the confluence of its North and Middle
Forks in the Culebra Range of the Rocky Mountains in southeastern
Colorado and flows 186 miles northeasterly to enter the Arkansas
River 3 miles east of Las Animas, Colo. Floods occur at irregular
intervals in different sections of the basin usually as a result of storms
m the watershed. They cause damage to railroad property, resi¬
dences, parks, business and industrial establishments, streets, sewers,
and public utilities, all in the city of Trinidad estimated to average
$29,650 annually in addition to damages to crops, farm improvements,
roads, bridges, and irrigation structures in the rural areas upstream
from the canyon section.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood problem in this
area in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control Acts
approved June 22, 1936, and June 28, 1938. He finds that flood pro¬
tection by reservoirs cannot be afforded in the main valley at a cost
commensurate with the benefits to be expected. He concludes, how¬
ever, that local protection works in the city of Trinidad are warranted
and he recommends the construction of channel and levee works
throughout the city at an estimated cost to the FTnited States of
$909,000.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 19
White River Basin
Congress, in the Flood Control Act of 1936, recognized the serious¬
ness of the flood problem in the White River Basin and authorized
local protection works for nine localities in the basin. Four of these
local protection ])rojects built prior to the flood of May and June of
1943 functioned as designed during that flood, protecting the city of
Newport, Ark., and important agricultural areas. The Flood Control
Act of 1938 approved a general comprehensive plan for the White
River Basin, in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of
Engineers and authorized $25,000,000 for the initiation and partial
accomplishment of the reservoirs of that plan. The Flood Control
Act approved August 18, 1941, modified and extended the compre¬
hensive plan and authorized an additional $24,000,000 for continuation
of work under the approved plan.
Pursuant to these authorizations, a midtiple-purpose flood control
and hydroelectric power development on the North Fork of White
River at Norfork, Ark., is nearing completion under rush orders to
provide power for important war indusLries and will be completed
this spring. Clearwater Dam on the Black River was initiated but
has been stopped in accordance with a directive from the War Pro¬
duction Board. In addition to the actual construction, plans and
specifications are in preparation for the Water Valley, Bidl Shoals,
Table Rock, and Greers Ferry Reservoirs.
The present bill proposes an additional authorization of $45,000,000
in order that work on the comprehensive plan may be resumed on an
effective scale in the period immediately following the cessation of
hostilities.
Upper Mississippi River Basin
The upper Mississippi River Basin is that part of the watershed of
the Mississippi River lying above Cape Girardeau, Mo., exclusive of
the Missouri River Basin.
The basin has been subjected to destructive floods at frequent inter¬
vals and extensive damages have been caused along the main Missis¬
sippi River and along the Meramec, Kaskaskia, Illinois, Sangamon,
and other tributary rivers, the most recent of which occurred in May
and June of 1943, when 465,000 acres of land were inundated causing
damage estimated at $27,500,000. Fifteen lives were reported lost
during this flood, alone. The most serious floods in the upper Mis¬
sissippi Valley Basin generally occur during the months of April, Alay,
and June.
The Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized the improvement of exist¬
ing local flood-protection works at 26 levees and drainage districts
along the upper Mississippi River, 32 localities along the Illinois and
Sangamon Rivers, 2 localities on the Kankakee River, and at 3 locali¬
ties on the Rock River. Two reservoirs for local flood control were
also authorized, one on the Minnesota River and one on a tributary
of the upper Iowa River. The authorization for the reservoir on the
upper Iowa River was later modified to provide for the diversion of
Dry Run and the construction of a system of levees. The 1938 Flood
Control Act approved a general comprehensive plan for flood control
in the upper Mississippi River Basin, consisting of the construction of
10 reservoirs supplemented by local protection works at 13 localities
20
KESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
on tlio upper Alississippi, Illinois, Sangamon, and Kaskaskia Rivers.
For the initiation and partial accomplishment of this work, the Con¬
gress authorized an app'ropriation of $2,700,000 for local protection
works and $6,600,000 for reservoirs.
Eight of the local protection projects authorized by the 1936 act
and six of the local protection projects contained in the comprehensive
plan, have been completed. Several others are partially completed.
Work on these projects has been deferred in accordance with a direc¬
tive from the War Production Board. Plans and specifications are
in preparation for the IMeramec, Big River, and Coralville Reservoirs,
and for additional local protection projects.
The present bill proposes an additional authorization of $10,000,000,
in order that work may b(' resumed promptly and effectively upon
the cessation of hostilities or earlier if practicable.
STE. GENEVIEVE LEVEE DISTRICT
(H. Doc. No. 727, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, authorized a
project for flood control in the Ste. Genevieve levee district No. 1,
Alissouri, consisting of the raising and enlarging of the existing levee
system to improve the existing protection at that locality. This
project has not yet been undertaken. On May 16, 1 942, the Secretary
of War transmitted to Congress the report of the Chief of Engineers
recommending modification of the existing project to provide for the
protection of Ste. Genevieve levee district No. 1 and an adjacent area
known as the Common Big Field by the construction of a levee and
appurtenant works, at a total estimated cost to the United States of
$141,000.
The area under consideration, consisting of both levee district No. 1,
and the Common Big Field, includes approximately 3,200 acres of
highly developed agricultui'al land lying between the Mississippi River
and its bluff, in addition to apiiroximately 100 acres occupied by a
railroad, roads, and buildings. The committee notes that the bene¬
fits expected to accrue from tlie project exceed the cost by a rat’o
of slightly better than 2 to 1, and it recommends that the project be
adopted by Congress.
Missi.ssirpi River at Sabula, Iowa
(H. Doc. No. 328, 77th Cong., Lst sess.)
The eastern half of Sabula is on high ground immediately adjacent
to the main Mississippi River channel and is not subject to flooding,
but in its natural state, the westerly half WLas subject to inundation
by fioodwaters entering the village from the low^ sw'ale west of the
town. To protect this area local interests constructed a levee extend¬
ing from the north end of town in a northwesterly dii-ection to high
ground at the Iowa Bluff and a second levee extending from the south
('lid of tnw'ii follownng an old railroad fill in a soutlnvesterly direction to
the liluff line. These twn levees protect the town against floods of the
magnitude of that of 1938, but would not protect against the largest
floods of past record. In iheir present condition, the levees are subject
to the erosive action of fioodwaters and may fail unless protected.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND -WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
21
Remedial measures recommended by the Chief of Engineers for the
protection of the local levee at Sabula, Iowa, consist of riprapping at
critical points as outlined in House Document No. 328 (77th Cong.,
1st sess.), at an estimated cost to the United States of $25,000.
In the opinion of the committee this work is essential and is economi¬
cally justified. The committee recommends protection of existing
levees at Sabula, Iowa, against erosion, in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers.
GALENA RIVER, ILL.
(H. Doc. No. 336, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
Galena River rises near Belmont, Lafayette County, Wis., flows
south into Illinois and discharges into Harris Slough, a side cliannel
of the Mississippi River, 565 miles above the mouth of the Ohio
River. It drains an area of 207 square miles of rugged terrain,
characterized by rolling uplands intersected by gorgelike valleys.
The city of Galena, with a population of 4,126 is located 4 miles above
the river’s mouth.
The only flood problem of consequence in the basin is at the city of
Galena and along the narrow strips of bottom land extending upstream
about 4 miles to the mouth of the East Fork. The plan for flood
protection recommended by the Chief of Engineers provides for the
construction of levees and flood walls and appurtenant structures for
the protection of tlie business and industrial sections on tbe west
bank of the river, for the abandonment and removal of three railroad
and two highway bridges, for modification of a highway bridge, and
for some channel enlargement through and below the city, at an
estim.atcd cost of $300,000.
The committee finds that a serious prolihun exists at Galena due
to frequent floods on the lower Galena River and it recommends
adoption of the project recommended by the Chief of Engineers.
ILLINOIS RIVER
(H. Doc. No. 692, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Illinois River is formed by the confluence of the Dos Plaines and
Kankakee Rivers in northeastern Illinois and flows southwesterly 273
miles to the Mississippi River at Grafton, 38 miles above St. Louis.
About 359,000 acres of land between the bluffs along the river were
originally subject to overflow. Of this area, nearly 200,000 acres,
below Starved Rock have been reclaimed by levees, which in general
afford a high degree of protection against all but the most severe
floods. Thirty -nine levee districts of importance are included in the
flood plain. These range in size from 794 to nearly 13,000 acres.
Opposite the Big Prairie drainage and levee district, a few miles below
Beardstown, the flood channel is restricted at the narrow opening by
the levees on the opposite bank of the river.
The Chief of Engineers finds that the use of the Big Prairie drainage
and levee district to provide additional floodway area in the interest of
flood control is desired and recommends that that district be purchased
by the United States and that the levee be suitably degraded, all at an
estimated cost of $111,500.
The committee followed the recommendations of the Chief of En¬
gineers and included this project in the bill.
22
RESERVOIRS, LE\'EES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
ELK CREEK AND TURKEY RIVER
(H. Doc. No. 700, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Elkport lies at the junction of Elk Creek and Turkey River, 21.2
miles above its mouth in Clayton County, Iowa. The Turkey River
at this point drains 1,556 square miles, including 67 square miles
drained by Elk Creek. Elkport lies within the flood plains of both
Turkey River and Elk Creek. Prior to the construction of a road
dike at Elkport, frequent and devastating floods of Turkey River and
Elk Creek inundated the town. Since completion of this dike in 1936
no flooding has occurred. A severe flood, however, would overtop
this dike and cause extensive damage. Adequate protection for Elk¬
port can be provided by raising the road dike or providing a levee on
the riverward side of the road. The Chief of Engineers finds that the
construction of a new levee on the riverward side of the existing road
dike would be the most suitable plan of improvement for Elkport and
recommends its construction, in accordance with plans set forth in
House Document No. 700, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session.
The committee is of the opinion that local flood-protection measures
at Elkport are warranted and recommends the adoption of the project
recommended by the Chief of Engineers, at an estimated cost of
$13,000.
Red River of the North Basin
RED LAKE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
(H. Doc. 345, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
Red Lake River, the principal tributary of the Red River of the
North, has its source at the outlet of lower Red Lake in the north¬
western part of Minnesota, flows generally westward through a mean¬
dering course for 196 miles, and empties into the Red River of the
North at East Grand Forks, Minn. The drainage area contains 5,711
square miles, of which about 500 square miles are water surface. The
principal tributary is Clearwater River, which enters from the south
about 90 miles above the mouth of Red Lake River.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood problem on the
Red Lake River and its tributaries pursuant to the authority contained
in the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, and has submitted
a report to Congress in which he recommends adoption of a Federal
project for the regulation of Red Lake for flood control by the installa¬
tion of three hand-ojierated Tainter gates and other appurtenant
works and for the rectification, clearing, and enlarging of the channels
of Red Lake River and Clearwater River, Minn., at an estimated
cost to the United States of $902,940.
The Flood Control Committee believes that the improvements out¬
lined in the report of the Chief of Engineers would provide a reason¬
ably satisfactory solution of the' water supply problems in the Red
Lake River Basin and the control of floods resulting from direct over¬
flow from streams within the Red Lake River Basin and it recommends
the authorization of the work proposed by the Chief of Engineers.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 23
Missouri River Basin
(Flood Control Committee Doc. No. 1, 75th Cong.; H. Doc. 842, 76th Cong.;
II. Doc. 475, 78th Cong.)
The Missouri Rivor is formed by the confluence of the Gallatin,
^ladison, and Jefferson Rivers at Three Forks, Mont., in the south¬
western part of that State. It flows in a generally southeasterly direc¬
tion to its junction with the Mississippi River about 17 miles above
St. Louis, I'.Io. From the headwaters of the Missouri River to its
mouth, the surrounding area changes from mountainous at the head¬
waters to sloping terrace lands, and finally to rolling plains near its
mouth. The river has a total length of 2,470 miles and drains an
area of 529,000 square miles, of which approximately 9,715 square
miles are in Canada.
Destructive flooding is a constant threat to farm lands and m-ban
property in the Republican, Kansas, and Missouri River Valleys. A
severe flood occurred on the lower Missouri River in June of 1942
inundating tens of thousands of acres of fertile bottom lands and in
the spring of 1943 the Missouri River experienced three severe floods,
the first of which occurred in April and centered over the upper basin;
the second occurred in May and June on the lower river as a part of the
floods visiting the Central and Midwestern States; and the third
occurred in June, reached the highest stage since 1917 at St. Joseph
and generally caused the highest levels since 1903 from Kansas City
to the mouth of the Osage River. The floods in 1943 inundated
about 2,478,000 acres of farm land and damaged numerous towns with
major damage centering at Beulah, Mont, and Mandan, N. Dak.;
Fort Pierre and Pieri’e, S. Dak.; Council Bluffs, Iowa; and Omaha,
Nebr., causing direct damage estimated at $47,382,000. Eleven
lives were reported lost during these floods. These recent floods in the
Missouri River, particularly below Sioux City, are the only major
floods of record in which no cut-off or no change in location of the main
channel of the river occurred. This is attributable to the improve¬
ments which have been made in connection with the navigation project.
The dikes constructed as part of the navigation improvements con¬
centrate the flow into one channel in such shape that the energy of the
flowing waters scours the desired channel and the banks are reveted
when the desired alinement is attained. For the first time in history
it appears that the channel of the Missouri River is stabilized and the
construction of reservoirs and local protection works can be initiated
with assurances that the works will protect the areas for which they
are designed.
Congress, in the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, adopted
a general comprehensive plan for flood control in the Missouri River
Basin, consisting of a system of nine reservoirs, at an estimated con¬
struction cost at that time of about $145,000,000, and authorized an
initial apiiropriation of $9,000,000 for the partial accomplishment of
that plan. The Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, ex¬
tended the plan to include the Harlan County Reservoir on the
Republican River, Nebr., and such other supplemental flood-control
works on that stream as the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engi¬
neers may find advisable, and authorized the appropriation of an
additional $7,000,000 for the prosecution of the comprehensive plan.
The Kanopolis Reservoir on the Smoky Hill River near Salina, Ivans.,
24
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
was selected for construction as the initial unit in the comprehensive
plan. That project was approximately 05 percent complete when all
work on it was suspended in accordance with a directive from the
War Production Board.
Following the flood in April of 1943, the Flood Control Committee,
by resolution adopted on May 13, 1943, requested the Board of Engi¬
neers for llivers and Harbors to review the prior reports on the
Missouri River, with a view to determining whether any modification
should be made therein at this time with respect to flood control along
the main stem of the Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa, to its
mouth. The reports of the division engineer, the Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief of Engineers in response thereto
have been submitted to Congress and have been published as House
Document No. 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.
The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the approved
plan of the Missouri River to include 12 additional reservoirs, 5 of
which are located on the main stem upstream from Sioux City, Iowa,
and a system of levees along both banks of the Missouri River between
Sioux City, Iowa, and the mouth. The committee has held extensive
hearings on the plan recommended by the Chief of Engineers. The
Governors of the 5 States in the headwater areas, the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, representatives of the Chief of Engi¬
neers of the United States Army, and representative local interests
presented their views in detail to the committee. After careful con¬
sideration of the testimony presented at that hearing, and with due
regard to the comments of the Bureau of the Budget on the report of
the Chief of Engineers, the committee is of the opinion that the works
recommended by the Chief of Engineers will form a broad framework
for the comprehensive development of the entire Missouri River
Basin in the interest of flood control, irrigation, power development,
navigation, and other purposes and that the adjustment of the water
use to meet the changing needs of the Missouri River Basin as a whole
can and will be made if the comprehensive development proceeds
step by step toward ultimate accomplishment. The committee,
tluu-efore, recommends that the approved comprehensive plan for the
Missouri River Basin be expanded to include the work recommended
by the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 475, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session.
The committee recognizes the high value of flood protection in the
Missouri River Basin and it believes that the sum of $200,000,000
should be authorized at this time in order that detailed plans may be
prepared for other reservoirs in the approved plan as expanded and
modified by the work recommended by the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 475 of the Sevenly-eighth Congress, and that
the additional projects that can be built under the increased authori¬
zation may be initiated as soon as the present restrictions on the public-
works program are lifted. In order clearly to affirm the intention of
the report of the Chief of Engineers and to reassure the residents in
the upper Missouri Basin, the committee has inserted the following
provisos to the item in the bill modifying and expanding the approved
comprehensive plan of development in the Missouri River Basin:
Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating below Sioux City
any demand upon the water resources of the Missouri River Basin above Sioux
City in excess of that now authorized by existing law: And "provided further,
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
25
That portions of the storage authorized for the main stem of the river shall be
placed on tributaries if the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers find such
action advisable for silt control and in order to make more water readily available
for agricultural and industrial use without impairment of flood control below
Sioux City and without increasing the authorized limit of cost.
THE KANSAS CITYS, KANS. AND MO.
(H. Doc. No. 342, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Missouri River flows southeasterly from its source in Montana
and enters the Mississippi River 17 miles above St. Louis, Mo. Just
A above the State line between Missouri and Kansas and 378.9 miles
^ above its mouth, the Missouri River is joined by the Kansas River
from the southwest. Big Blue River enters Missouri River from the
south 10.3 miles below the mouth of the Kansas River. The Missouri
and Kansas Rivers at their confluence drain 427,720, and 60,060
square miles, respectively. Big Blue River drains 286 square miles.
East of the State line and on the south bank of Missouri River is
located Kansas City, Mo., which contains within its limits most of the
lower 19 miles of Big Blue River. The adjoining city of Kansas City,
Kans., includes the lower several miles of Kansas River and borders
the Missouri River on the south and west for about 6 miles upstream.
North Kansas City, Mo., is on the north bank of Missouri River
opposite these 2 cities. These separately incorporated municipalities
with populations of about 399,180, 121,460, and 2,690, respectively,
together form an important commercial and industrial center, served
by 13 railroads and improved Federal and State highways.
With a view to relieving flood hazards in this important industrial
and commercial center. Congress, by the act of June 22, 1936, author¬
ized levees and flood walls to protect the people and citj^ property at
the Kansas Citys, in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of
) Engineers, as amended by further studies, at an estimated cost to the
United States for construction of not to exceed $10,000,000 and an
estimated cost of $8,000,000 for lands and damages to be borne by
local interests. The general plan of improvement provides for the
construction of levees and flood walls as project units at Argentine,
Armourdale, Central Indostrial, Fairfax- Jersey Creek, North Kansas
City, and East Bottoms; for channel improvement of the Kansas
River; for bridge and approach alterations on the Kansas River; and
for channel and floodway improvement along the Missouri River. A
considerable portion of the work on the Fairfax- Jersey Creek unit and
some channel improvement in the Kansas River have been undertaken.
Further studies disclose the advisability of including in the plan a
cut-off in the Aiissouri River at Liberty Bend below the Kansas Citys
between miles 357 and 363.7, as this would reduce flood stages and
improve the alinement for navigation. The Liberty Bend cut-off, as
designed, will reduce the cost of flood protection at the Kansas Citys.
Without the cut-off, adequate flood protection at the Kansas Citys
camiot be obtamed except by encroachment of protective structiu’cs
upon the Alunicipal Airport of Kansas City, Mo., with a resultant
reduction in its usable area and a disruption of existing airport facili¬
ties. Many important industries and facilities lie within the area to
be protected, mcluding two airports, one of wliich is utilized by the
Army Air Corps, the Naval Reserve, and the Marine Reserve; defense
training schools; a large assembly plant for military aircraft; impor¬
tant stockyards and packing plants; a number of grain storage and
H. Kept. 1309, 78-2 - 4
26 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
flour milling facilities; vital portions of the important transportation
network converging at the Kansas Citys, together with their shops,
yards, and other facilities. Furthermore, the proposed cut-off will be
beneficial to the lower portions of the Big Blue River Valley and other
urban localities.
The Chief of Engineers recommends that the existmg project for
flood control at the Kansas Citys, which was initiated pursuant to the
authority contained in the Flood Control Act of 1936, be modified in
accordance with the plan presented in House Document No. 342,
Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, including protection for the
Union Wire Rope Co. plant on Big Blue River; higher levee grades at
the individual levee units contained in the original plan; construction
of the Liberty Bend cut-off and protection for the Birmingham district,
all at an additional estimated cost of $8,445,000. The connnittee
concurs in this recommendation.
Cherry Creek and Tributaries, Colorado
(H. Doc. No. 426, 76th Cong., 1st sess.)
In the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, and in its
report on that bill, the committee recognized the possibility of a major
flood on Cherry Creek threatening the city of Denver, Colo., with a
major catastrophe. Cherry. Creek rises in El Paso County, Colo.,
flows northerly to join the South Platte River in Denver. The
topography of Cherry Creek Basin is such as to cause large floods of
great mtensity and may descend on Denver with little warning. For
the lower 6)2 miles of the course. Cherry Creek flows through industrial
and residential sections of the city. The great flows which would
result from major floods on Cherry Creek would submerge a large part
of the centi'al portion of Denver, including important business dis¬
tricts, raih’oad yards and industrial establishments, and extensive
residential areas. Denver is the most important industrial center
between the Missouri River and the Pacific coast, and any disruption
of the normal activities of that city would be detrimental to the whole
country.
With a view to removing the tlireatened hazard to the city of
Denver, Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1941 adopted the project
recommended by the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 426,
Seventy-sixth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $10,-
500,000 and authorized the appropriation of $3,000,000 for the initia¬
tion of that plan. Under this authorization, a large portion of the
detailed plans and preliminary work required prior to the initiation
of actual construction has been completed, and the committee has
included the authorization of $7,500,000 in this bill in order that the
project may be carried to completion in the post-war period.
Knife River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 252, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Knife River rises in the Killdeer Mountains in west central
North Dakota and flows generally easterly 165 miles to enter the
Missouri River near Stanton. The stream drains an area of 2,625
square miles. The basin, with a population of 18,300 is sparsely
settled, the largest towns being Hebron, Beulah, Hazen, and Killdeer,
with populations of 1,267, 942, 662, and 650, respectively.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 27
The town of Benlah has suffered three damaging floods since the
time of its founding in 1913-14, the largest of which occurred in 1938.
The principal flood hazard at Beulah is caused by two normally dry
coulees north of the town which are inadequate to carry flood flows.
Flood damages at Hazen are caused by overflows of the tributary.
Antelope Creek. Hazen has suffered flood damages three times, the
greatest of which also occurred in 1938, causing damage estimated at
$31,200.
In a report on the control of floods in the Knife Kiver Basin, the
Chief of Engineers recommended a plan of improvement consisting
of increasing the chamiel capacities for the two coulees north of
Beulah and constructing levees along the critical portions of the im¬
proved channels; and for raising, enlarging, and extending the exist¬
ing levees and channel improvement at the town of Hazen. The
estimated costs of the recommended works are $26,100 for the town
of Beulah and $6,600 for the town of Hazen.
The committee finds that the benefits expected to accrue from the
improvements exceed the cost, and it recommends that the projects
be adopted at this time.
MILK RIVER, MONT.
(S. Doc. No. 103, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Milk River is formed by the confluence of its North and South
Forks near the St. Alary Lakes in northwestern Alontana, flows into
Alberta Province, and then southeasterly through Montana, a dis¬
tance of 625 miles, to its junction with the Alissouri River at a point
11 miles below the Fort Peck Dam. It drams an area of 24,326
square miles, of which about two-thhds is in the United States.
Major floods m the basin result from rapid spring run-off and heavy
spring and early summer rains. The floods resulting from early
spring run-off are frequently aggravated by ice jams. Approximately
200,000 acres of agricultural land in the basin are subject to damage.
The principal flood areas of the basin are included m the reach of the
valley of the main stem of the river from Havre to the mouth and
along the lower portions of the larger tributaries. Ten major floods
have occurred on Milk River since 1880, while localized floods occur
nearly every year.
The Flood Control Act of 1936 authorized local flood protection
works at Saco, Glasgow, and Harlem, Mont., at estimated costs to
the United States of $26,800, $25,800, and $9,700, respectively. The
project at Glasgow has been completed.
As a result of studies by the Corps of Engineers, in accordance with
the resolutions of the Senate Committee on Commerce, it has been
found advisable to modify the existing project at Harlem, Alont., to
provide for flood control by means of a diversion of Thirty Alile
Creek and a system of levees, at a total estimated cost' to the United
States of $21,100, and the authorization of a project at Havre, con¬
sisting of levees and the construction of a diversion channel together
with incidental and appurtenant works, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $313,100.
The committee notes that the Milk River was one of the tributaries
of the Alissouri River suffering extensive damage during the flood in
April of this year and it is of the opinion that the works recommended
by the Chief of Engineers in the Alilk River Basin should be authorized
at this time.
28 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Boyer River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 254, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Boyer River rises near Storm Lake, Iowa, and flows south¬
westerly about 139 miles to its confluence with the Missouri River, 13
miles north of Council Bluffs. It drains an area of 1,093 square miles.
The largest towns in the basin and their populations are as follows:
Missouri Valley, 4,200; Denison, 3,900; Logan, 1,700; and Dimlap,
1,500.
The Boyer River Basin is subject to fairly frequent floods, which
usually result from ice jams retarding the run-off of spring thaws in
March and April, or from intense rains during the late spring and early
summer months m that portion of the basin above Denison. Between
1908 and 1939, 8 major floods and 13 minor floods have occurred in the
Boyer River Basin. The average amiual flood damage at Denison is
estimated at $2,080. Remedial measures recommended by the Chief
of Engineers consist of impoverment of the East Fork of Boyer River,
Iowa, by levees and channel work for the protection of Denison, Iowa,
at an estimated cost to the United States of $17,830.
The committee recommends that the works be adopted in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.
Nishnabotna River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 253, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Nislmabotna River is formed by the confluence of the East and
West Nishnabotna Rivers at a point about 4 miles north of Hambui^,
Iowa. The two streams rise in Carroll County, Iowa, and flow about
a hundred miles generally southerly and parallel to each other, to
their junction 12 miles above the mouth of the main stream. The
system drains approximately 2,995 square miles.
Bottom lands adjacent to the main stream and its principal tribu¬
taries are subject to inundation. During the period of reliable record,
1912 to 1939, 12 floods have caused considerable damage and 15 have
caused minor damage. Wlien the Missouri River is high, silt is
deposited into the lower channel of the Nishnabotna River within the
Missouri River flood plain, thereby aggravating the flood condition.
Real property within the city of Hamburg, valued at $3,000,000, and
30,000 acres of highly developed agricultural lands at and below
Hamburg are subject to damage. The future annual flood damage at
Hamburg is estimated at $17,750. The plan for flood protection at
Hamburg, recommended by the Chief of Engineers, provides for
straightening the river channel including eliminating three sharp
bends below the lowa-Missouri State line, and for raising and en¬
larging the existing levees from Hamburg to the mouth, at an estimated
cost of $236,000.
The committee concurs in the recommendation of the Chief of
Engineers and authorization for this work has been included in the bill.
Bear Creek, Colo.
(H. Doc. No. 356, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
Bear Creek rises in Summit Lake on the eastern slope of the Rocky
Mountains in north-central Colorado and flows easterly 45 miles to
join the South Platte River near Denver. The watershed has an area
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
29
of 265 square miles and is almost entirely of mountainous terrain form¬
ing steep narrow stream valleys. Flash floods occur frequently on
Bear Creek, usually as a result of intense local cloudburst storms cen¬
tering over one or more tributary areas. The loss of 44 lives has been
attributed to the floods on this stream. The War Department has
investigated a reservoir system for flood control and finds that such a
system would be impractical because of the number of reservoirs
required to insure adequate geographical distribution of the storage and
because of the problem of disposition of silt and debris in the reservoir
area. The Chief of Engineers recommends a project for enlarging,
straightening, and clearmg the channel of Bear Creek, for removal of 4
small bridges and for relocation of the Mount Vernon Creek Channel
through the town of Morrison at an estimated cost of $220,000.
The committee notes that the average annual flood-control benefits
expected to accrue from the construction of the project are in excess of
the annual carrying charges and it recommends the adoption of the
project.
Ohio River Basin
(Flood Control Committee Doc. No. 1, 75th Cong., 1st sess.; H. Doc. No. 685,
77th Cong., 2d sess.; H. Doc. No. 889, 77th Cong., 2d sess.; H. Doc. No. 762,
77th Cong., 2d sess.; S. Doc. No. 105, 78th Cong., 1st sess.; H. Doc. No. 444,
78th Cong., 2d sess.; and reports of the Chief of Engineers on the Cheat and
Youghiogheny Rivers submitted to Congress by the Secretary of War on
November 26, 1942, and March 29, 1943, respectively)
The Ohio River Basin, including all or a portion of 14 States in
the eastern watershed of the Mississippi River, is one of the most
important river basins in the United States from an industrial and
agricultural standpoint. Since 1900, this area has been visited by 5
disastrous floods and by many smaller ones. The flood of 1936 was
most destructive in the section above Wheeling, W. Va. The great
flood of 1937 caused damages throughout the entire middle and lower
Ohio Valley, estimated at about $400,000,000, drove 500,000 people
from their homes, paralyzed industry and communications, and
eaused large loss of human life and interruption to orderly develop¬
ment that is impossible to evaluate. The most recent major flood
was the 1942-43 New Year’s Eve flood on the upper Ohio. At that
time, 6 flood control dams were in full or partial operation above
Pittsburgh. These reservoirs reduced the crest stage at Pittsburgh
by 3 feet and prevented property damage estimated at over $15,000,000
and reduced flood stages as far downstream as Wheeling, thereby
reducing damages in this reach of the Ohio River by an estimated
$14,000,000. The value of flood control works to the Nation is
demonstrated by the fact that just 6 reservobs costing some $38,-
250,000 on tributaries of the Ohio River above Pittsburgh prevented,
in one flood, damage estimated at about $29,000,000. It is true that
considerable damage resulted from this flood and that it continued
in major proportions on down below Cincinnati, but fortunately, the
rain did not cover the lower basin and the downstream cities escaped
major flood damage.
Congress, in the Flood Control Acts approved June 22, 1936, and
August 28, 1937, authorized a number of flood-control projects on
tributaries of the Ohio River and by the Flood Control Act of 1938
approved the general comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin
as a whole and authorized $125,300,000 for the initiation and partial
30 RESERVOIRS; LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
accomplishment of that plan. The Flood Control Act of 1941 author¬
ized the appropriation of an additional $45,000,000 for the prosecu¬
tion of the approved plan.
Pursuant to these authorizations, 22 reservoirs and 21 local protec¬
tion projects have been completed and placed in operation or have
been carried to the point where they are being operated to provide
substantial flood-control benefits. Small amounts of additional work
will be needed on some of those projects after the war. In addition,
construction of 3 reservoirs and 6 local protection projects has been
initiated, but completion of these projects has been suspended during
the war.
The present bill modifies the general comprehensive plan approved
by the 1938 Flood Control Act to include: Local protection works in
the Lake Chautauqua and Chadakoin River area at an estimated cost
to the United States of $135,500, as recommended in the House Doc¬
ument No. 685, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session; local flood-
protection works at Dillonvale and Adena on Short Creek, Ohio, at
an estimated cost to the United States of $158,200 in accordance with
the recommendations in House Document No. 889, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session; local protection works on Salt River at
Taylorsville, Ky., at an estimated cost to the United States of $129,350
in accordance with Senate Document No. 105, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session; local flood-protection works at Latrobe on Loyal-
hanna Creek, Pa., at an estimated cost to the United States of $112,500
in accordance with House Document No. 444, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session; a reservoir at the Burr Oak site on a tributary
of the Hocking River, Ohio, at an estimated cost to the United States
of $400,000 in accordance with the recommendations in House Docu¬
ment No. 762, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session; the Rowles-
burg Reservoir on the Cheat River at an estunated cost of $29,230,000
for flood control and the development of hydroelectric power in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in a
report submitted to Congress by the Secretary of War on November
26, 1942; and a system of reservoirs on the Youghiogbeny River for
flood control and the development of hydroelectric power at an
estimated cost of $37,970,000 in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in a report submitted to Congress by the
Secretary of War on March 29, 1943. The bill puts the aforemen¬
tioned projects into the approved comprehensive basin plan and makes
them eligible for selection by the Chief of Engineers for construction
under the authorizations made available for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan.
Communities in the Ohio River Valley are now largely engaged in
war production which, as the war comes to an end, will be cut back
drastically with resultant acute problems of readjustment to peace¬
time activities. Flood-control construction will aid materially in
providing employment for the transition period in the Ohio River
Basin. The committee believes that the important flood-control
work in the Ohio River Basin should be resumed on a large scale as
soon as possible. The bill proposes an additional authorization of
$70,000,000 for the prosecution of the compi’ehensive plan. This
will enable the Corps of Engineers to prepare detailed designs and
specifications for additional reservoirs and local protection projects
in the Ohio River Basin and have them fully ready for prompt
reservoirs, levees, and walls for flood control 31
initiation wlien'^the present restrictions on the initiation of Federal
public works have been lifted.
Great Lakes Basin
MOOSE AND BLACK RIVERS, N. Y.
(H. Doc. No. 405, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
Black River rises in Herkimer County in northern New York, flows
in a winding course generally northwest, and discharges into Black
River Bay, an arm of Lake Ontario. It is 115 miles long and drains
an area of 1,917 square miles. Moose River, principal tributary of
Black River, has its headwaters in Hamilton County northeast of
Black River headwaters, flows generally west and joins Black River
at Lyons Falls, 72 miles above the mouth. It drains an area of 434
square miles. The entire basin has a population of about 74,000;
Watertown, with a population of 32,000, is the largest city.
Black River and several of its tributaries are extensively developed
for^power for use by mills and for public consumption, with total in¬
stalled capacity of 170,600 horsepower. Considerable unused fall is
still available for development. In 1919 the Black River regulating
district, a State agency, was organized to regulate stream flow in the
primary interest of downstream power development. This agency
now also has authority to improve river chamiels for flood control.
The regulating district has constructed one reservoir with storage
capacity of 103,000 acre-feet and operates two small reservoirs with
aggregate capacity of 23,000 acre-feet which were originally built by
the State in connection with the Erie Canal. The regulating district
has an official plan for the further regulation of Black River which
contemplates construction of at least three more reservoirs. The
largest of these proposed reservoirs, which would be at the Panther
Mountain site on Moose River, is ready for construction as soon as
financing is arranged, and a large part of the necessary lands has
already been acquired.
Floods on Black River overflow parts of the bottom lands bordering
the river between Lyons Falls and Carthage one or more times each
year, while larger floods inundate all of these lands, aggregating about
17,000 acres. The greatest flood of record on Black River was that
of December 1901, when the peak discharge at Watertown was 49,000
cubic feet per second. It is estimated that a flood of 80,000 cubic
feet per second is a possibility. Average annual direct and indirect
flood damages are estimated at $183,000.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the construction of a reservoir at the Panther Mountain
site with a gross storage capacity of 278,000 acre-feet, of which 44,000
acre-feet would be reserved solely for flood control use and the remain¬
ing 234,000 acre-feet would be used for stream flow regulation, at an
estimated first cost of $3,800,000. His recommendation also provides
that local agencies furnish without cost to the United States all avail¬
able plans, hydraulic and geological studies, results of underground
explorations, and other available information on the project and fur¬
nish all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for the construc¬
tion of the project estimated at $250,000; hold and save the United
States free from claims for damages resulting from the construction
of the works; maintain all the works and operate that portion of the
32 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND "WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
reservoir storage reserved for flood control purposes in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War and that upon com¬
pletion of the works they will contribute the sum of $2,950,000 toward
the first cost of constructing the project.
The committee believes that the average annual flood-control bene¬
fits expected to accrue from construction of the project, amply justify
the proposed Federal investment of $600,000 in the construction of the
Panther Moimtain Reservou'. It notes that the Black River regulat¬
ing district desires construction of the Panther Mountain Reservoir
m the combined interest of flood control and stream flow regulation and
has indicated its willingness to participate in the first cost of the
project in proportion to the allocation of storage space as between
flood control and stream flow regulation and to maintain and operate
the project under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War,
insofar as the operation of the flood-control storage is concerned. The
committee recommends the adoption of the project.
CHITTENANGO CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NEW YORK
(H. Doc. 625, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Chittenango Creek rises in central New York, flows north 50 miles
and empties into Oneida Lake, which, in turn, has an outlet into Lake
Ontario, thi’ough the Oneida and Oswego Rivers. The drainage area
of Chittenango Creek is 326 square miles. Approximately equal areas
are drained by the main stream and its two principal tributaries.
Limestone and Butternut Creeks, which flow north generally parallel
with the main stream and join it near its mouth. In 1930 the basin
had a population of 33,000, including 10,000 in the city of Syracuse.
Flooding is comparatively frequent along the lower reaches of Chitten¬
ango Creek and its tributaries. Extreme floods occurred in 1898 and
1915 and in recent years two or more high-water periods have been
experienced nearly every year. The average flood flow inundates
8,000 acres of agi’icultural lands in the principal flood area in the lower
basin. The average annual direct and indhect flood damages in the
agricultural areas are estimated at $22,000. Damages in the villages
of Fayetteville and Chittenango average $7,000 annually.
The plan of flood protection found most suitable by the Chief of
Engineers for obtaining flood relief involves channel improvements
along the lower 40 miles of Chittenango, Limestone, and Butternut
Creeks, at an estimated first cost of $136,000 for construction and
$7,000 for rights-of-way. The Chief of Engineers recommends con¬
struction of the proposed work at an estimated cost of $111,000 to the
United States, subject to the provision that local interests contribute
$25,000 toward the construction cost in addition to providing the
usual local cooperation.
The Flood Control Committee is of the opinion that the measures
proposed by the Chief of Engineers are justified economically and
recommends adoption'of the project.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 33
OWASCO INLET, OWASCO OUTLET, AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES, TOMPKINS AND CAYUGA
COUNTIES, N. Y.
(II. Doc. No. 815, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Owasco Inlet rises near Freeville, N. Y., and flows northward 20
miles through a narrow valley to Owasco Lake. The lake empties into
Owasco Outlet which flows northward 16 miles and discharges into
Seneca River. Crane Brook, draining an area immediately west of
the Owasco Basin, is 21 miles long and flows in a generally northward
direction to the Seneca River. Cold Spring Brook and its eastern
tributary, Jericho Brook, which drain the watershed east of Owasco
Outlet, flow in a generally northward direction and empty into Seneca
River 1% miles below their junction. The po]ndation in the area
totals about 53,000, including 36,000 in the city of Auburn on Owasco
Outlet near the lake.
Floods occur almost annually in the area at the time of the spring
break-up and occasionally at other times as the residt of heavy pre¬
cipitation. They afl'ect farm lands and the villages of Locke on
Owasco Inlet; Moravia and Montville on Montville Creek, a tribu¬
tary of the inlet; and Port Byron on Owasco Outlet; and cause aver¬
age annual damages estimated at $42,300. A project designeil to
alleviate flood conditions along tin', shore of Owasco Lake and in the
citw of Auburn was authorized by the Flood Control Act of August 18,
1941. The authorized project in this area provides for excavation of
the channel of Owasco Outlet from Owasco Lake to the State dam at
Auburn and for the reconstruction of the dam with removal of obstruc¬
tions to be accomplished by local interests.
The need for further flood control in this area has been investigated
by the Chief of Engineers. He finds that substantial flood protection
can be provided at a cost commensurate with the benefits for the village
of Moravia and for the agricultural land along the Owasco Inlet be¬
tween Dry Creek and the lake and along State Ditch and Crane
Brook. He recommends improvement of Owasco Inlet, Montville
Creek, and Dry Creek at a total estimated cost of $83,000, of which
$48,700 would be chargeable to the United States; improvement of
State ditch and Owasco Outlet at an estimated cost of $17,000, of
which $13,100 would be chargeable to the United States; and im¬
provement of Crane Brook at an estimated cost of $2,700, of which
$2,400 would be chargeable to the United States.
The committee believes that the improvements projiosed by the
Chief of Engineers are in the public mterest and recommends the adop¬
tion of the project.
Colorado River Basin
CONCHO RIVER
(H. Doc. No. 315, 76th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Concho River Basin has suffered severe flood damage over
many years. The largest flood of record occurred in September
1936, when flood losses amounted to over $2,000,000. The most
serious problem in the watershed exists in the valley of the North
Concho River at and near San Angelo, Tex., where the damage from
the 1936 flood amounted to $1,400,000. In order to reduce the flood
34 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
hazard in this valley, Congress, by the act of August 18, 1941, approvea
the construction of a flood-control dam and reservoir on the North
Concho River upstream from San Angelo, and local protection works
through the city of San Angelo, at an estimated cost of $6,800,000
to the United States. The 1941 act authorized $2,000,000 for the
initiation and partial accomplishment of this plan. The detailed
plans and specifications for these works are now being prepared and
the bdl authorizes completion of the approved plan at an estimated
additional cost of $4,800,000.
PECAN BAYOU
(H. Doc. No. 370, 76th Cong., 1st sess.)
Pecan Bayou rises in central Texas and flows generally southeast
a distance of 130 miles through generally rolling to rough country.
The basin drains an area of 2,200 square miles, having a population
of 49,000. Frequent floods on Pecan Bayou and its tributaries cause
extensive flood damages which are especially severe on Hords Creek
in the vicinity of Coleman, Tex., and along the lower portions of
Pecan Bayou, where the town of Brownwood and 23,500 acres of
land are subject to inundation.
Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1941 approved the construc¬
tion of the Hords Creek Reservoir and the enlargement of the existing
Lake Brownwood Reservoir, and authorized the appropriation of
$1,400,000 for the initiation and partial accomplishment of the
approved plan.
Detailed plans for the construction of Hords Creek Reservoir and
for the enlargement of Lake Brownwood Reservoir are in preparation.
The committee feel that full authorization should be available for
completion of these works. The bill therefore increases the authori¬
zation in the estimated additional amount of $1,560,000.
Beazos River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 390, 76th Cong., 1st sess.)
Floods are comparatively frequent on the Brazos River and cause
extensive damage to urban improvements and to farm crops and
property. Several examinations and surveys of this stream and its
tributaries for flood control, navigation, and water conservation are
now in progress under authority from Congress. These studies con¬
firm the conclusions of previous studies which have shown that the
construction of a dam at the Whitney site on the Brazos River will be
an integral part of any comprehensive plan for the development of the
entire stream and that the need for flood protection for the town of
W'aco justifies its construction prior to the completion of the compre¬
hensive plan.
In 1940 and 1941 the Flood Control Committee held extensive hear¬
ings on this project and reported that the reservoir should be con¬
structed as a multiple-purpose project for flood control, water con¬
servation, and the development of hydroelectric power. The Flood
Control Act of 1941 approved the construction of the Whitney Reser¬
voir and authorized the sum of $5,000,000 for the initiation of the
project. The bill proposes authorization for the completion of the
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 35
plan approved in the act of August 18, 1941, at an estimated addi¬
tional amount of $15,000,000.
Rio Grande Basin
(S. Doc. No. 104, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
Under authority of a resolution adopted by the Committee on Com¬
merce of the United States Senate, the Chiel of Engineers has investi¬
gated the flood situation in the Rio Grande Basin in the vicinity of
Creede, Colo. Creede, the county seat of Mineral County, Colo., is
a mining town located on Willow Creek, a small headwater tributary
of the Rio Grande. Willow Creek drains an area of 36 square miles
and is formed by the confluence of the East Willow and West Willow
Creeks about 4,000 feet upstream from the town of Creede. Creede
is located on the detrital cone formed by Willow Creek at the mouth
of its canyon. A wooden flume constructed between 1895 and 1910
with an initial capacity of about 1,800 cubic feet per second has carried
the flow of Willow Creek through the town but the flume has now
reached the limits of its usefulness and can no longer be depended upon
to carry the floods. The Chief of Engineers recommends the construc¬
tion of a new flume, approximately 3,350 feet long following the same
alinement as the existing structure, at an estimated cost to the United
States of $68,500.
The committee notes that Creede is the principal gateway to an
important mining region. Since the present wooden flume is now in a
state of impending total failure, it will be necessary to provide a re¬
placement if serious damage and loss of human life from floods are to
be prevented in the future. The committee recommends the author¬
ization of the project.
San Diego River, Calif.
(H. Doc. No. 635, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
San Diego River has its source on the tableland in the Cuyamaca
Mountains, near Santa Ysabel, Calif., and flows southwesterly to the
Pacific Ocean through Mission Bay north of the city of San Diego.
The entire San Diego River system is under investigation at the pres¬
ent time. However, the flood situation at the city of San Diego is
such as to make it highly desirable that flood protection be provided
for that community, particularly for the United States Marine Corps
base, the United States naval training station, the Consolidated Air¬
craft plants. Federal Housing units, and a considerable amount of
private residential and industrial developments, prior to the develop¬
ment of a comprehensive system of flood control for the entire basin.
Studies by the Corps of Engineers indicate that local flood protec¬
tion for the city of San Diego, Calif., as proposed in the present
interim report will be an integral part of any comprehensive plan of
flood control in this basin. Tlie plan of protection recommended by
the Chief of Engineers consists of construction of a levee in the ap¬
proximate location of the existing dike, making use of the latter where
found practicable at the time the work is undertaken. The estimated
cost of the work recommended is $350,000 for construction and
$20,000 for lands, rights-of-way, and drainage installations. In view
of the importance of protecting Federal activities in the area and in
36 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
order that the protection of Government property be not dependent
upon local cooperation, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
and the Chief of Engineers recommend that the United States bear
the total first cost of the improvement and maintain the works after
completion.
The committee is of the opinion that flood protection for the Federal
property in this area warrants a deviation from the usual conditions
of local cooperation and that in this case the entire cost of the local
protection projects should be borne by the Federal Government. The
committee accordingly recommends adoption of the project on this
basis.
Ventura River, Ventura County, Calif.
(H. Doc. No. 323, 77th Cong., 1st se.ss.)
Ventura River has its source in the Santa Ynez iMoun tains in
southern California, flows south 32 miles and empties into the Pacific
Ocean at Ventura, about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles. The
watershed has an area of 228 square miles, nearly half of which is
mountainous with elcY^ations ranging up to 6,000 feet above sea level.
A serious flood problem exists in and near the city of Ventura on lower
Ventura River and in the city of Ojai below Stewart Canyon. The
area subject to overflow amounts to about one-third of the valuable
land in the basin and has a population of around three-fourths of the
total basin population. Direct flood damages in the basin during the
March 1938 flood amounted to $777,000.
The Chief of Engineers finds that the most economical plan of flood
protection in this basin is one providing for a levee on the left bank of
the Ventura River to protect the city of Ventura and for a debris
basin at the mouth of Stewart Canyon with a concrete channel to
carry flood flows through Ojai. The estimated cost of the project to
the United States is $1,600,000.
The committee notes that most of the development along the lower
river is concentrated in the areas which would receive protection from
this project. It believes that the benefits which would result from
the elimination of the flood menace and the prevention of a serious
loss of life amply justify the construction of the project and it recom¬
mends authorization by Congress.
Santa Ana River Basin
The Santa Ana River and its upper tributaries have their source on
the southern slope of the San Bernardino hlountains. The river
proper flows about 27 miles through a rugged mountainous region
emerging into a wide outwash area at the base of the mountains, thence
southwesterly a distance of 43 miles to the head of the Santa Ana
Canyon, and thence through the'canyon and the Coastal Plain a dis¬
tance of 30 miles into the Pacific Ocean through an artificial cut north¬
west of the city of Newport Beach. The beach comprises an area of
2,476 square miles southeast of Los Angeles.
From the standpoint of property damage and loss of life, the 1938
flood in the Santa Ana River Basin was the most severe of record,
with property damage estimated at $21,000,000 and loss of 43 lives.
While greater floods in the Santa Ana River Basin occurred in 1862,
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 37
1876, 1884, and 1891, records of damage from these floods are incom¬
plete. The destruction of highways and main line railroads in 1938
not only resulted in serious local damage but caused widespread losses
due to interruption of transportation facilities. The most recent
flood in this area occurred on January 21-23, 1943, on certain tribu¬
taries of Santa Ana River in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,
Calif., when a 3-day heavy general winter storm produced a total
average rainfall of about 22 inches in the mountainous parts of the
drainage area, resulting in direct and indirect flood damages estimated
at $1,840,300, of which $1,485,900 occurred on Lytle Creek. In addi¬
tion, one person drowned in the floodwaters of Lytle Creek and the
normal activities of the flooded communities were disrupted. Addi¬
tional intangible damages also occurred as a result of interruption in
the transportation of war shipments. The effect of these floods on
railroads is described in a report of the Corps of Engineers which shows
that of the $1,840,300 damage sufl’ered from this flood in the Santa
Ana Basin, $831,000 represented damage to railroads. A similar pro¬
portion e.xisted on Lytle Creek where $822,500 of the total damages
amounting to $1,485,900 were suffered by the railroads.
With a view to relieving the flood hazards in tliis valley. Congress
in the 1936 Flood Control Act authorized the construction of reser¬
voirs and related flood-control works for the protection of the metro¬
politan area in Orange County, Calif. The project adopted in that,
Act was modified by the 1938 Flood Control Act to provide for the
control of floods on the San Antonio and Chino Creeks. The modified
plan provides for the construction of nine reservoirs and channel im¬
provement on San Antonio and Chino Creeks. The Prado, Brea, and
Fullerton Reservoirs have been completed and are in operation.
These reservoirs substautially reduced flood damages in the Santa
Ana River Basin during the flood of January 1943. Detailed planning
is under way for the San Antonio, San Juan, and Carbon Canyon
debris basins and for the channel improvement work on San x4.ntoino
and Chino Creeks.
Following the destructive flood in January of 1943, the Chief of
Engineers jirepared an interim report on the Santa Ana River covei'ing
Lytle and Cajon Creeks under authority contained in the Flood
Control Act approved August 28, 1937. In this report the Chief of
Engineers recommends the construction of a combination of levees
and groins on Lytle and Cajon Creeks above Foothill Boiflevard in
San Bernardino County, Calif., the construction of an improved
channel generall}^ along the west branch of Lytle Creek below Foothill
Boulevard, and use of the existing east branch as a bypass for excess
flows, with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the
wSecretary of War and Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an
estimated cost to the United States of $8,055,000.
The committee held extensive hearings in June of 1943 and February
of 1944 on the Santa Ana River Basin project and on the interim report
covering Lytle and Cajon Creeks. In view of the effect of floods on
important transcontinental railway communications wdiich extend
through Cajon Pass between southwestern California and the indus¬
trial east and midwestern parts of the country, the committee recom¬
mend adoption at this time of the project for Lytle and Cajon Creeks.
For the accomplishment of the work on Lytle and Cajon Creeks, and
for continuation of work on the approved plans for flood control in the
38 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Santa Ana River Basin and for the protection of tlie metropolitan area
in Orange County, the committee recommend modification of the
existing project and an additional authorization at this time of
$10,000,000.
LOS ANGELES AND SAN GABRIEL RIVER BASINS AND BALLONA CREEK, CALIF.
(H. Doc. No. 838, 76th Cong., 3d sess.)
The Los Angeles County drainage area, consisting of the watersheds
of Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Ballona Creek, comprises
an area of 1,717 square miles. In 1940 the population within the over¬
flow area exceeded 800,000 and the value of property subject to flood
damage was more than $1 ,000,000,000. Four plants located in an area
that would be directly affected by flood waters in these streams have
been engaged on war contracts which in 1941 exceeded a total value
of $375,000,000. In addition to these plants, other industries engaged
in war production would be indirectly affected by floodwaters due to
interruption of transportation facilities. The aggregate amounts of
primary contracts held by these latter companies exceeded $582,000,-
000. Due to the recent expansion of the war industries in this area,
both the property value and population within the overflow area have
increased rapidly.
These streams are subject to sudden and destructive floods resulting
from rapid run-off from mountainous areas. The 1938 flood caused
a loss of 49 lives and property damage estimated at $40,400,000.
Floods passing through the densely populated residential areas com¬
pletely destroy many homes and leave in their places broad areas
strewn with sand, gravel, and boulders. One flood from a small
tributary left 40-ton boulders on a paved highway.
Congress, in the Flood Control Act of 1936, authorized a flood
control project for the Los Angeles-San Gabriel River Basin, involving
construction of reservoirs and principal flood channels. In the 1941
Flood Control Act Congress approved a comprehensive plan for
flood control in this basin embracing the 1936 project with important
extensions and additions at an estimated additional cost to the
United States of $163,500,000 and for the initiation and partial
accomplishment thereof authorized the appropriation of $25,000,000.
A number of reservoirs and debris basins and extensive flood channels
have been completed and placed in operation and detailed plans and
specifications are now under way for additional units.
The bill proposes an additional authorization of $25,000,000 for the
prosecution of the comprehensive plan. This will enable the Corps
of Engineers to proceed with the construction of additional items in
the comprehensive plan to provide much-needed flood protection
and to assist in readjustment to peace in this highly industrialized
region.
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins
The watersheds of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their
tributaries form the great Central Valley of California, which occupies
more than 59,000 square miles in the northern and central portions of
the State. The Central Valley is entirely surrounded by mountains
or mountain spurs while the valley floor consists of a sloping alluvial
plain which is of great agricultural importance to the State and to
tlie Nation.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 39
SACRAMENTO RIVER
The existing project for flood control on the Sacramento River,
Calif., was adopted by the Flood Control Act of March 1, 1917, and
has been modified by subsequent acts of Congress. The Flood
Control Act of August 18, 1941, modified and extended the existing
project for the Sacramento River to increase the protection of
1,000,000 acres of land lying within the area of the existing project
which were in danger of serious flooding from the overtopping of
levees not yet completed to project grade or from possible failure of
levees of insufficient section. That act authorized an additional
$10,500,000 for the completion of work planned under the existing
project and its modification in addition to the previous authorizations
which limited Federal participation to a total of $20,100,000.
The Sacramento River Valley is one of the most highly productive
regions in the United States and numerous specialized crops are
grown in this area. Transcontinental railroads and interstate
highways of great military importance traverse the valley.
At the committee’s request in the recent hearings, the report of
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Ffarbors on an interim report
covering the Sacramento River and tributaries from Collinsville to
Shasta Dam was made available to the committee. In that report
the Board of Engineers stated that the most urgent need of the area
at this time is additional flood protection which can be provided to a
considerable extent by the construction of the low Table Mountain
Dam, the construction of Black Butte Dam on Stony Creek, the
extension of the existing flood control project, and the construction
of levees and channels unrelated to the existing project on the Sacra¬
mento River, all at an estimated cost to the United States of $46,056,-
000. This initial work would make possible the reclamation of Butte
Basin, materially improve the degree of protection along the Sacra¬
mento River, and give protection to certain localities which lie outside
the limits of the existing flood-control project. The committee con¬
curring with the Board recommends further modification of the
existing project to embrace these works and proposes an authorization
of $15,000,000 for carrying on the modified project. Subsequent to
the hearings, the committee has received a number of communications
from local interests in the vicinity of the Table Mountain Reservoir
project expressing strong opposition to any high dam at that site, as
would be necessary for the ultimate plan of comprehensive develop¬
ment outlined in the Board of Engineers’ report. Since the flood-
control needs can be met by the recommended low dam the bill
includes a proviso stating that the modification of the project shall
not be construed to authorize the high dam.
San Joaquin River Basin
KERN RIVER, CALIF.
(H. Doc. No. 513, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Kern River drainins: an area of some 2,400 square miles on the
western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains is the most southerly
of the major streams flowing into the San Joaquin Valley. The river
is formed by the confluence of the North and South Forks near the
town of Isabella, flows southwest 72 miles past the city of Bakersfield
40 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
to a point just norlli of Buena Vista Lake where its watei-s are either
diverted into the Buena Vista Lake Basin for temporaiy storage or
are carried toward Tulai-e Lake Basin by improved flood and irriga¬
tion channels. Under normal conditions of run-off the flow of Kern
River below Bakersfield is gradually dissipated h}" irrigation diversions
so that Kern Rivi'r water reaches Tulare Lake Basin only during
large floods.
Kern River floods are of frequent occurrence and fall into two types,
those which occur during the winter months as a icsult of intense
rainfall in the mountains and foothills, and those which come in the
late spring as a result of melting snows. Since February 1937, there
have been two winter floods and two late spring floods on Kern River.
Winter floods cause extensive damage to levees and irrigation struc¬
tures and serious!}^ threaten inundation of Bakersfield. Late spi'ing
floods cause little damage in the upper delta but cause flooding of up
to 15,000 acres of reclaimed land in Buena Vista Lake, cause inunda¬
tion of some 110,000 acres along the various channels southeast of
Tulare Lake, and with the Kings, Kaweah, and Tide Rivers contribute
to flooding of agricidtural lands in the Tulare Lake Basin. Inundated
areas in Bnena Vista and Tulare Lake remain out of production for
1 or more years until the water is dissipated through evaporation
or irrigation use. Flood damages due to Kern River floods average
$879,000 annually. Of this sum $441,000 represents the propor¬
tionate part of the damage in the Tu.lare Lake Basin caused by flood
waters of Kern River.
Plans found most suitable by the Chief of Engineers for improve¬
ment in the Kern River area provide for the construction of a storage
reservoir at the Isabella site and for its operation in the combined
interests of flood control and water conservation. The report of the
Chief of Engineers proposes that the cost of the Isabella Reservoir be
borne jointly by the United States and the water users, the United
States bearing the cost for flood protection and the water users jDaying
the cost for irrigation storage either in a lump sum or in annual
installments.
In the hearings of 1943 and 1944 on this bill and also in the hearings
of 1941, the committee has given local interests full opportunity to
express their views. The committee has also called the Commissioner
of Reclamation and his representatives to testify regarding the Bu¬
reau’s plans for the Kern River. Local interests havi' convinced the
committee that there is urgent need for flood control on the Kern
River and that protection can best be provided by the construction
of the Isabella Dam for flood control with secondary benefits from
water conservation. Local interests have been unanimous in their
statements that they are willing and able to pay for the irrigation
benefits received and that they desire that the project be constructed
and operated by the Corps of EngineiTs, since its dominant purpose
is flood control. After veiy thorongh consideration of the reports of
the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation and the testi¬
mony of witnesses, the committee recommends authorization of the
Kern River project at an estimated cost of $6,800,000. the works to
be constructed, operated, and maintained under the direction of the
Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. The
committee believes that the interests of the Bureau of Ri'clamation
ai’e fully safeguarded by the cooperative procedures recommended by
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 41
the Chief of Engineers in his report, which recommendations attain
the force of law through adoption of the report in the bill.
KAWEAH AND TDLE RIVERS
(Flood Control Committee Doc. No. 1, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Kaweah River, with a watershed area of 1,250 square miles, rises in
the glacial lakes of the Sierra Nevada and flows southwesterly through
low foothills to the floor of the San Joaquin Valley. At this point the
river divides into two forks, one known as St. Johns River which joins
with Cottonwood and Cross Creeks and empties into the Tulare Lake
Basin; the other, continuing as Kaweah River, flows about 4 miles
southwesterly, where it divides into numerous channels which unite
with Tide River or Cross Creek to enter Tulare Lake Basin. Tule
River, having a watershed area of 630 square miles, drains the western
slope of the Great Western Divide immediately south of the Kaweah
watershed. The Tide River is formed by its North and Middle
Forks near Springville and flows thence southwesterly and westerly
across the alluvial fan to Tulare Lake Basin. Principal activities in
the Kaweah and Tule areas include raising and processing of agri¬
cultural products, production of petroleum and minerals, and a limited
amount of manufacturing.
Hydrological conditions in the Kaweah-Tule areas are peculiar to
the south San Joaquin Valley and differ f^om those generally en¬
countered in other sections of the country. The greater part of the
precipitation in this area occurs in the form of snow in the mountain¬
ous regions. Floods of comparative frequency on the Kaweah and
Tule Rivers are of two distinct types, those which occur during the
winter months as a result of intense rainfall in the mountains and foot¬
hills and those which come in the late spring as a result of melting
snow in the headwater area. Winter floods cause overflow and dam¬
age in the upper delta areas but their floodwaters seldom reach
Tulare Lake Basin. Spring floods have a much larger total run-off
volume and generally inundate areas along the lower reaches of the
streams and in the Tulare Lake Basin with floods of major propor¬
tions causing extensive overflow damages. It is estimated that dam¬
ages from Kaweah River floods average $285,000 annually and that
damages attributable to Tule River floods average $216,500 annually.
In addition to these direct losses, substantial indirect and intangible
losses not susceptible of direct valuation occur.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
and contained in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, provides for the construction
of a storage reservoir on Kaweah River at the Terminus site, to be
operated in the combined interests of flood control and water con¬
servation, and for the use of available spreading facilities for the dissi¬
pation of floodwaters and the replenishment of ground-water sup¬
plies, at an estimated cost of $4,600,000. The plan found most suit¬
able in the Tide River Basin provides for construction of a storage
reservoir at the Success site to be operated in the combined interests
of flood control and water conservation and for use of available
spreading facilities for the dissipation of floodwaters and the replen¬
ishment of ground-water supplies at an estimated cost of $3,450,000.
42 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
In the opinion of the Flood Control Committee, the Terminus and
Success projects will provide urgently needed flood control on the
Kaweah and Tule Kivers. It believes that in order to insure the
expected flood control benefits the reservoirs should be constructed,
operated, and maintained under the direction of the Secretary of War
and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, with arrangements for
payment by the State or other responsible agency to the United States
for the conservation storage when used, all as recommended by the
Chief of Engineers. The committee recommends approval of the
plan for the Kaweah and Tule Rivers and authorization of $4, 600,000
for initiation and partial accomplishment thereof.
Kings River and Tulare Lake Basin
(H. D. No. 630, 76th Cong., 2d sess.)
Kings River rises on the western slope of the Sierra-Nevada in
Fresno County, Calif. The upper basin above the town of Piedra
is rugged and mountainous while below Piedra the river enters a rela¬
tively flat alluvial valley where it divides, one branch known as Fresno
Slough flowing north to join the San Joaquin River and the other
turning south to Tulare Lake. The area below Piedra, including
Tulare Lake, is known as the Kings River Service Area. Of the
1,000,000 acres in the service area, some 850,000 acres are farm land
generally under intensive iridgation.
The floods which occur on the Kings River are generally of the two
types that occur throughout the San Joaquin River Basin. Since
May 1937 five floods have occurred on the Kings River or Tulare Lake,
three being of the winter type caused by intense rainfall and two of the
late spring type caused by melting snow in the upper watershed area.
A total of over 236,000 acres of high grade farm land are subject to
overflow and the areas inundated in Tulare Lake Basin are kept out of
pi’oduction from 1 to several years. The average annual flood
damages in the Kings River service area are in excess of $1,300,000.
The plan of flood protection recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the construction of a reservoir on Kings River at the Pine
Flat site for flood control and water conservation together with channel
improvements on Kings River at an estimated cost of $19,700,000.
The Flood Control Committee is of the opinion that the cost of the
Pine Flat Reservoir should be borne jointly by the United States and
the water users, the United States bearing the cost for flood protection
and the water users the cost for irrigation storage either by lump sum
payment or in annual installments, with the division of cost to be
determined by the Secretary of War on the basis of continuing studies
by the Bureau of Reclamation, the War Department, and local organi¬
zations.
The Kings River project has also been the subject of a report sub¬
mitted in 1940 by the Bureau of Reclamation. The structures pro¬
posed are essentially those recommended by the Corps of Engineers
but the Bureau of Reclamation recommends that the project be oper¬
ated by the Bureau and that the provisions of reclamation law be ap¬
plied thereto. The Bureau considers that the project is now author¬
ized under reclamation law but no funds have yet been appropriated
for detailed planning or construction and no work has been undertaken.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 43
The committee has heard extensive testimony from local interests
and has questioned the Chief of Engineers and the Commissioner of
Reclamation at length in hearings in 1941, 1943, and 1944. Local
interests have all impressed the committee with the seriousness of the
flood hazard and their desire that the proposed works be constructed
as soon as possible. They are practically unanimous in their state¬
ments that the dominant interest in the project is flood control with
irrigation of secondary consideration. Such irrigation benefits as
would result would accrue to land now already developed without
bringing into production additional arid land. Local interests are so
strongly in opposition to a project built under reclamation law that
they have stated that rather than have the project built by the
Bureau of Reclamation they prefer no Federal project at all.
After very careful consideration of the reports, the communications
of the President which are printed in the hearings, and the testimony
and written statements in the hearings, the committee is convinced
that the project should be authorized by Congress as a flood-conti’ol
project with adequate safeguards for the interests of the Bureau of
Reclamation. The committee believes that these safeguards are
fully covered in the language contained in the bill. The committee
therefore recommends authorization of the project as proposed in the
bill at an estimated cost of $19,700,000.
Merced County Stream Group, California
(H. D. No. 473, 78th Cong., 2d Sess.)
The streams comprising the Merced County stream group rise in the
Sierra Nevada foothills of California and flow in a generally westerly
direction to join the San Joaquin River west of the city of Merced.
The streams form three general groups; Bear Creek, with its tributaries
Black Rascal, Canal, Fahrens, and Burns Creeks; Mariposa Creek
with its tributaries Miles and OtVens Creeks; and Deadmans Creek
with its tributaries, Little Deadmans, Big Deadmans and Dutch¬
mans Creeks. The Deadmans Creek group crosses an undeveloped
area of low-grade pasture land for which improvements for flood
control and related works would not be warranted. The remainder
of the Merced County stream group drains an area of 392 square miles
ranging from mountainous to low foothills and a lower area of 312
square miles of broad alluvial valley.
Floods on these streams are caused by heavy rainfall in the foothills
and mountains during winter months. The area has experienced 16
damaging floods in the past 40 years. The total area of 136,000 acres
subject to flooding includes a substantial portion of the developed
area of the Merced irrigation district. The War Department estimates
that future flood damages in the Merced County stream group will
average $92,700 annually.
Plans found most suitable by the Chief of Engineers for improve¬
ment in the Merced County stream group provide for the construction
of four small detention reservoirs in the foothill area with aggregate
storage capacity of 32,000 acre-feet; the construction of two diversion
canals to distribute flood waters between various channels; completion
of the enlargement of Miles Creek previously undertaken by local
interests, and clearing of obstructions from other channels, all at an
estimated cost to the United States of $1,300,000.
44 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND "WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
The committee finds that the improvements recommended by the
Chief of Engineers will eliminate practically all damage resulting from
floods on Black Rascal, Burns, Bear, Miles, Owen, and Mariposa
Creeks. In addition, it is of the opinion that high-ground water
conditions which are serious in the Merced County stream group
would be greatly improved because of the better drainage resulting
from the channel clearing and flood-water detention. The committee
recommends the adoption of the project.
Lower San Joaquin River
(Flood Control Committee Doc. No. 2, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The lower San Joaquin River group of streams comprises the San
Joaquin River and its tributaries north of Kings River and those other
streams tributary to Tulare Lake Basin which together constitute
the south half of the San Joaquin Valley and which except during
major floods contribute no run-off to the San eloaquin River. The
San Joaquin River has its source in the Sierra Nevada, flows generally
southwesterly tlu'ough the mountains and foothills to the vicinity of
Friant where it enters the flat alluvial valley through which it flows
west 60 miles to Mendota. At Mendota the river turns northwest and
flows 157 miles to Mossdale at the head of the San Joaquin Delta
which is an extensive area of reclaimed tidal swamp lands tlu’ough
which the river flows with numerous side channels and sloughs to join
the Sacramento River at the head of Suisun Bay near Antioch. The
river drains an area of 17,000 square miles, exclusive of the Tulare
Lake Basin drainage area. Merced, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and
Mokelumne Rivers, which are the principal tributaries of the San
Joaquin River, also have their source in the Sierra Nevada, and flow
generally westerly through the mountains and foothills to enter the
alluvial valley and join the main. river from the east in its lower
reaches.
Floods which are comparatively frequent on the San Joaquin River
and its tributaries are of two types, those that occur during the
winter as a result of intense rainfall and those which come in the late
spring as a result of melting snow in the mountain areas. Since 1900
there have been 38 floods of damaging magnitude on the major
streams of the San Joaquin River group, 15 of which resulted primarily
from rain while the remaining 23 were caused by melting snow. The
area subject to inundation in the San Joaquin Valley above the head
of the Delta is approximately 390,000 acres of which 160,000 acres are
partially protected by levees. In the Delta, 279,000 acres have been
protected by levees against ordinary floods on the San Joaquin River
and Sacramento Rivers, but due to the limited heights to which
levees can be built, these lands may be inundated by major floods on
the two rivers. The War Department estimates that direct flood
damages along the San Joaquin Valley and in the San Joaquin Delta
area will average $1,425,000 aimually.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood situation along
the lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries, in response to the
authorizations contained in the Flood Control Act approved June 22,
1936. He finds that the most feasible plan of improvement in this
area consists of the construction of the New Meloncs Reservoir on
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 45
the Stanislaus River for flood control and other purposes at an esti¬
mated first cost of $7,210,000; Federal participation with San Fran¬
cisco and with other local interests in the New Don Pedro or other
suitable reservoirs in the Tuolumne Basin to the extent justified by
proportionate benefits for flood control, now estimated at $5,800,000
for the equivalent of 320,000 acre-feet of storage in the Jacksonville
Reservoir; and the construction of channel improvements and levees
on San Joaquin River and tributary channels at an estimated first cost
to the United States of $2,875,000 subject to the usual conditions of
local cooperation for the channel improvement and levee work.
The committee notes that the New Melones Reservoir for flood con¬
trol as proposed by the Chief of Engineers will be so developed as to
permit raising in the future to provide capacity for conservation
storage; that flood control storage in the Tuolunme River Basin can
be most economically provided by Federal participation in the con¬
struction of reservoirs now planned by the city of San Francisco and
other local interests for the Tuolumne River Basin; and that the
channel improvements and levees proposed for the San Joaquin River
and its tributaries are integral parts of any comprehensive plan for
flood control in the lower San Joaquin Valley. The committee
recommends approval of the plan and an authorization at this time
of $8,000,000 for the initiation and partial accomplishment thereof.
CoQuiLLE River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 620, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Coquille River is formed by the junction of the North and South
Forks near the town of Myrtle Point in southwestern Oregon, flows
generally westerly for 35 miles and enters the Pacific Ocean, 125 mile
south of the mouth of the Columbia River. It drains an area of 1,070
square miles of generally rugged and densely timbered area. Major
floods occur in the Coquille River Valley on the average of about
once in 10 years, while freshets which overtop the river bank may be
expected to occur several times annually.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood situation in this
area and he finds that the construction of levees in the lower reach of
the river and bank protection at mile 9 and inclosure of washes at
the head of Beaver Slough and Fat Elk drainage districts are justified.
He recommends this work at an estimated construction cost of
$168,000, of which $143,000 is the estimated cost to the United States,
subject to the condition that responsible local agencies contribute the
sum of $25,000 toward the cost of construction, in addition to the
usual requhements of local cooperation.
The committee notes that the proposed work will provide substan¬
tial flood protection with benefits in excess of the costs and has
included an authorization for this project in the bill.
Nehalem River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 621, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Nehalem River rises in the Coast Range Mountains in northwest
Oregon and flows in a generally southwesterly dhection for a hundred
miles, discharging into Nehalem Bay, 40 miles south of the mouth of
46 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
the Columbia Kiver. It drains an area of 862 square miles of rugged
and heavily timbered terrain. Approximately 8,000 acres of arable
land in the upper basin and 4,700 acres in the lower basin are subject
to overflow. In the lower basin, damages attributable to river flows
alone are infrequent, but nearly half of the lowland is subject to
annual overflow caused by high tides or a combination of high tides
and high river flows. The maximum known flood occurred in Decem¬
ber 1933, reaching a stage of 20 feet above mean lower low water near
the mouth and caused damage estimated at $7,700 in the upper basin
and $58,700 in the lower basin.
A report on the flood situation in the Nehalem River Basin has
been transmitted to Congress in response to authorizations contained
in the acts approved June 11, 1935, February 26, 1936, and June
22, 1936. The Chief of Engineers finds that protection can be afforded
for an area of 770 acres by the reconstruction and extension of an
existing levee at an estimated cost for construction of $33,000, of
which $23,000 would be borne by the United States and $10,000 con¬
tributed by local interests.
The committee is of the opinion that the work recommended by the
Chief of Engineers is warranted and .accordingly has included in the
bill an item authorizing its construction.
Willamette River Basin
(H. Doc. No. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess.)
The Willamette River is formed by the coast and Middle Forks
which join a few miles above Eugene, Oregon. The river then flows
north 189 miles to enter the Columbia River 99 miles above its mouth.
The Willamette Basin lies between the Cascade Range on the east and
the coast range on the west. The mountainous areas, which comprise
a large part of the basin, are characteristically rugged and generally
covered by forests. The valley floor proper is a broad alluvial plain
through which the main stream and the lower sections of its tributaries
flow in winding courses. The basin has a dramage area of 11,200
square miles. The population is approximately 650,000, engaged in
farming and forestry and the processing of those products. The
farm lands in the valley are very fertile and are intensely cultivated.
Floods in the basin may be expected from November through April
and major floods occur in the period from late November to early
February. Flood damages to farm lands and communities are very
heavy. The most recent flood in this area occurred in the period
between December 31, 1942, and January 4, 1943, when the stage at
Albany exceeded bankfull stage by 13.6 feet and an area of 342,300
acres was inundated, causing damage estimated at $5,708,000.
Congress authorized bank-protection works at several loealities in
the basin in the Flood Control Act of 1936 and in the act of June 28,.
1938, approved the general comprehensive plan for flood control,
navigation, and other purposes^ in the Willamette River Basin as set
forth in House Document No. 544, Seventy-fifth Congress, third
session, and authorized $11,300,000 for the initiation and partial
accomplishment of that plan. The Flood Control Act of 1941
authorized an additional appropriation of $11,000,000 for the prose¬
cution of this comprehensive plan. With authorization of funds thus
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 47
far provided by Congress the War Department has completed most of
the bank-protection works along the Willamette, Clackamas, Molalla,
and Santiam Kivers, and the Fern Ridge and Cottage Grove Reser¬
voirs. The preparation of detailed plans for four other reservoirs in
the approved plan is well under way.
The committee recognizes the importance of carrying forward the
flood-protection works in the Willamette River Basin to an early
completion and it believes that the sum of $20,000,000 should be
authorized at this time in order that this important work may continue
immediately following the cessation of hostilities.
Columbia River Basin
SNAKE RIVER, IDAHO AND OREG.
(H. Doc. No. 452, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Snake River is the principal tributary of the Columbia River.
It rises in the Rocky Mountains in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo.,
and flows in a general westerly and northerly direction to join the
Columbia River at Pasco, W%sh. It drains an area of 109,000 square
miles. The area in the Snake River Valley most seriously affected by
floods is the agricultm’al district lying on both sides of the river along
the 20-mile stretch between Heise and Roberts, Idaho. The channel
through this reach has a capacity of about 20,000 cubic feet per second.
The maximum flood of record occurred in 1894 with a peak discharge
of 65,000 cubic feet per second in this reach. During the past 50
years, 38 floods have exceeded 20,000 cubic feet per second.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood problem on the
Snake River in accordance with the authority contained in an act of
Congi'ess approved March 4, 1937, and has submitted his report
thereon to Congress. The Chief of Engineers reports that the most
suitable plan for protecting the Heise-Roberts area provides for
reserving 500,000 acre-feet of storage space for flood-control use in tbe
Grand Valley Reservou’ now under consideration by the Bureau of
Reclamation supplemented by channel impiovement work between
Heise and Roberts, and he recommends that the latter be undertaken
at an estimated cost to the United States of $734,000 together with
protection to the river banks near Weiser, Idaho, against erosion at
an estimated first cost of $9,000.
The committee believes that the recommended channel improve¬
ment and bank protection, in combination with flood-control storage
in the Grand Valley Reservoir when that project is constructed, will
offer the most satisfactory means of flood protection in this area.
The committee, therefore, recommends its adoption.
PALOUSE RIVER
(H. Doc. No. 888, 77th Cong., 1st sess.)
The Palouse River rises in the Bitterroot Mountain Range in Idaho
and flows 140 miles generally west through the State of Washington
to enter the Snake River 59 miles above the mouth. It drains an
area of 2,980 square miles. The stream valleys of Palouse River, the
South Fork of Palouse River, and other tributaries are subject to dam¬
aging floods. The damages have been concentrated prmcipally in
48 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
urban areas and suburbs. Investigations made by the Corps of
Engineers show that the control of floods by means of storage reser¬
voirs alone or in combination docs not appear to be economically
feasible. However, local protection works at the towns of Pullman
and Colfax will produce benefits suflicient to justify the cost of
construction.
In his report on the flood situation on the Palouse Kivcr, the Chief
of Engineers recommends the construction of flood-control works on
the South Fork of Palouse River at Pullman and on Spring Flat Creek
and Palouse River in the vicinity of and through Colfax, consisting of
channel enlargement and modifications, levees, flood walls, and
revetments, at an estimated cost to the United States of $478,000.
The committee believes that the improvements proposed by the
Chief of Engineers are meritorious and in the public interest and
recommends adoption of the project.
ALKALI CANYON
(H. Doc. No. 631, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Alkali Canyon is a short tributary of the' Columbia River entering
from the south. It is about 12 miles long and flows from a divide
4% miles north of the town of Rock Creek to the Columbia River at
Arlington. The flood problem on Alkali Canyon is confined largely
to the lower three-fourths of a mile within the town of Arlington.
The largest known flood occurred in June of 1927 as a result of an
intense local cloudburst storm. The sudden flood destroyed many
residential and commercial buildings, washed out roads, and caused
damage estimated at $316,600.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood problem on
Alkali Canyon and has submitted his report thereon to Congress.
He recommends the construction of a project for flood protection at
Arlington by means of an enlarged channel lined with concrete or
grouted revetment and appurtenant works at an estimated cost to
the United States of $118,000.
The committee is of the opinion that local flood-protection measures
at Arlington, Oreg., are warranted and recommends the adoption of
the project proposed by the Chief of Engineers.
WILLAPA RIVER, WASH.
(H. Doc. No. 701, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Willapa River is a coastal stream in southwestern Washington that
rises in the Willapa Hills and flows northwesterly 37 miles to Willapa
Bay, located about 30 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia
River. The drainage area of 240 square miles is developed principally
for timber resources. The principal flood problem on Willapa River
is the frequent inundation of certain areas along the lower river and
in the city of Raymond, as a result of high tidal stages augmented
by high winds. Private interests have built levees for the protection
of about 800 acres of tidal flats from tidal overflow. These levees are
in good condition but are of insufficient height.
The Chief of Engineers has investigated the flood situation on the
Willapa River in response to the authorization contained in the Flood
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 49
Control Act approved June 28, 1938, and has submitted a report in
which he recommends construction of a levee system at Raymond to
enclose the low-lying sections, at an estimated cost to the United States
of $127,000.
The committee finds that the estimated benefits from the proposed
work exceed the cost by a substantial margin and believes that the
project should be adopted as recommended b^y the Chief of Engineers.
SECTION 8. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS
Section 8 of the bill authorizes and directs the Secretary of War to
cause preliminary examinations and surveys for flood control and
allied purposes, including channel and major drainage improvements
and protection from floods aggravated by or due to tidal effect, at the
localities designated in said section ; and the Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and
sui’veys for run-off .and water-flow retardation and soil erosion pre¬
vention on the watersheds of these same localities.
This section is similar to examination and survey sections contained
in the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and subsequent acts and it clarifies
the language contained in those acts to show definitely that the words
“flood control” shall be construed to include channel and major
drainage improvements. In accordance with its usual policy, the
Flood Control Committee has included in this section the streams and
areas in all bills for examinations and surveys which have been intro¬
duced since the last general flood-control act.
SECTION 9. AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The general flood-control legislation enacted between 1936 and
1941, inclusive, has provided authorizations totaling $965,000,000 for
the construction of 460 reservoirs and local flood-protection projects.
Of these, 185 projects have been substantially completed and 46
more projects were in various stages of construction when suspended
in order to conserve materials, equipment, and manpower for the war
effort. Details of the present status of the authorized flood-control
program are contained in the following tabulations.
Status of authorizations for flood control
50
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES,
AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 51
Comprehensive plans for flood control and other purposes in major river basins
Present approved plan
Total au-
Total ap-
Total estimated Federal
cost
Basin
Number
of
projects
Total esti¬
mated Fed¬
eral cost
thorizations
to date
propria-
tions to date
Projects
undertaken
Basin au¬
thorizations
in this bill
Arkansas River _
13
$122, 619, 000
$.50, 000, 000
$12, 188, 200
$42, 505, 000
$35, 000, 000
Connecticut River _ _
30
98, 602, 000
45, 684, 000
20, 648, 200
23, 903, 000
30, 000, 000
Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Rivers. . . .
64
238, 813, 000
108, 389, 000
73, 140, 200
75. 837, 000
25, 000, 000
9
21, 000, 000
144, 576, 000
21, 000, 000
16, 000, 000
9, 541, 000
6, 575, 000
9, 541, 000
8, 977, 000
Missouri River . .
10
200, 000, o66
Ohio River _ _ _
186
581, 052, 000
235, 439, 800
141. 302, 600
220, 321, 200
70. 000, 000
Santa Ana River . .
11
34, 767, 000
28, 500, 000
11, 257, 900
11, 257, 900
10, 000, 000
Upper Mississippi River _
23
89, 351, 000
9, 300, 000
1, 111, 600
1, 248, 000
10, 000, 000
White River.. _
8
155, 064, 000
49, 000, 000
30, 729, 300
36, 000, 000
45, 000, 000
Willamette River . .
10
82, 308, 000
22, 300, 000
9, 196, 600
9, 196, 600
20, 000, 000
Total . .
354
1, 568, 152, 000
685, 612, 800
315, 690, 600
444, 786, 700
445, 000, 000
The committee wishes to emphasize that this is a post-war bill to
assist in attaining two very worthy post-war objectives, to wit:
Orderly adjustment from war to peace and protection of lives and
property from the ravages of floods. This bill proposes to approve
112 worthy flood-control projects recommended by the Chief of
Engineers and to mcrease the authorizations for flood-control con¬
struction in the amount of $810,000,000. This authorization added
to the amounts remaining available from prior legislation will provide
a large working balance for numerous projects well distributed across
the Nation and diversified as to type between large dams, concrete
flood walls, channel improvenients, earth levees, and combinations of
these types. The greatest concentration of work is in the populous
areas where hazards are most serious and where post-war adjustment
will be most severe.
The progress of carrying out these authorizations will be deter¬
mined by Congress through control of the amounts appropriated for
flood-control work. The committee has been assured by the Chief of
Engineers that the Corps of Engineers is ready and able to embark
on a very large program of flood-control construction subject only to
the availability of authorization and appropriations. At the rate of
appropriations before the war emergency this bill will provide for
about 6 years of construction. If post-war appropriations are larger,
there will be consequent speeding up of work. The committee
believes that enactment of this bill is an essential element in prepara¬
tion for a large public-works program of worthy and carefully con¬
ceived projects and it strongly recommends speedy action on the bill.
SECTION 10. PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE
Section 10 authorizes the prosecution of measures for run-off and
'water-flow retardation and soil erosion prevention by the Department
of Agriculture on eight watersheds on which that Department has made
surveys pursuant to the acts of 1936 and 1938 and for which projects
have been reported favorably by the Secretary of Agriculture. These
projects, as provided by law, have been reviewed by and correlated
with the plans of the Corps of Engineers.
52 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
The works of improvement included in these eight projects will afford
substantial reductions in the damages suffered from the frequent small
and medium-sized floods that occur on headwater tributary streams
generally upstream from works planned by the Corps of Engineers.
They will also reduce greatly the quantity of erosion debris deposited
in stream channels and reservoirs and upon flood plains. In addition,
important benefits will accrue to the owners and operators of lands,
upon which the measures will be applied, in the form of increased
yields of crops and forest products, and increased productivity of pas¬
ture due to reduction in erosion and impi'ovement in density and
quality of vegetative cover.
The works proposed on these eight projects will provide a valuable
complement to structures on waterways that have been or are likely
to be built by the Corps of Engineers.
SECTION 11. RE.WTHOEIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Section 11 reauthorizes the balance of the appropriation of
$10,000,000, previously authorized in the act of June 28, 1938, for
expenditure by the Departm.ent of Agriculture for the im.provement of
watersheds during the post-war period.
SECTION 12. EMERGENCY WORK BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Section 12 of this bill am.ends section 7 of the act of June 28, 1938.
This am.endment woidd permit the Secretary of Agriculture to under¬
take em.orgency measures on denuded watersheds to prevent hazards
due to flash floods and destructive erosion that follow the loss of pro¬
tective cover by forest fires or other catas trophies, especially in areas
of steep slopes and erodible soils. Such emergency measures would be
authorized without, in every case, having to wait for specific authori¬
zation to the Corps of Engineers for engineering structures on the
waterways concerned. A limitation of $100,000 a year is imposed.
Changes in Existing Law
COMPLIANCE CLAUSE 2 (A), RULE XIII
EXISTING LAW THIS BILL
(Flood Control Act, approved June 22, That the words “flood control” as
1936, 49 Stat. 1570) used in section 1 of the Act of June 22,
„ . T, . , , • , , 1936, shall be construed to include chan-
8ec. 1. It IS hereby recognized that and major drainage improvements,
destructive floods upon the rivers of the * * *
United States, upsetting orderly proc¬
esses and causing loss of life and prop¬
erty, including the erosion of lands, and
impairing and obstructing navigation,
highwaj^s, railroads, and other channels
of commerce between the States, con¬
stitute a menace to national w'elfare;
that it is the sense of Congress that
flood control on navigable waters or their
tributaries is a proper activity of the
Federal Government in cooperation with
States, their political subdivisions, and
localities thereof ; that investigations
and improvements of rivers and other
waterways, including watersheds there-
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
53
EXISTING LAW
of, for flood-control purposes are in the
interest of the general welfare; that the
Federal Government should improve or
participate in the improvement of navi¬
gable waters or their tributaries, includ¬
ing watersheds thereof, for flood-control
purposes if the benefits to whomsoever
they may accrue are in excess of the
estimated costs, and if the lives and
social security of people are otherwise
adversely affected.
THIS BILL
Sec. 3. In order to fully utilize dam
and reservoir areas under the control of
the War Department, the Chief of Engi¬
neers, under the supervision of the Sec¬
retary of War, is authorized to con¬
struct, maintain, and operate recreation,
conservation, and other facilities thereat
advantageous to the interests of the
United States, or to permit the construc¬
tion, maintenance, and operation of such
facilities. The Secretary of War is au¬
thorized to grant leases of lands, struc¬
tures, or facilities in said areas for such
periods and upon such terms as he may
deem reasonable. All moneys received
for such leases or privileges shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 4. That the Secretary of War is
authorized to sell to States, municipali¬
ties, private concerns or individuals, at
such prices and on such terms as he may
deem reasonable, for domestic and in¬
dustrial uses surplus water that may be
available at any reservoir under the con¬
trol of the War Department. All mon¬
eys received from such sales shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United
States as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 5. Hereafter, it shall be the duty
of the Secretary of War to prescribe
regulations for the use of storage avail¬
able for flood control or navigation at
all reservoirs constructed wholly or in
part with Federal funds provided on
the basis of such purposes, and the oper¬
ation of any such project shall be in
accordance with such regulations.
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever in the
opinion of the Secretary of War and the
Chief of Engineers any dam and reser¬
voir project operated under the direction
of the Secretary of War can be consist¬
ently used for reclamation of arid lands,
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of
the Interior to prescribe regulations for
the use of the storage available for such
purpose, and the operation of any such
project shall be in accordance with such
regulations. Such rates,, as the Secre¬
tary of the Interior may deem reason¬
able, shall be charged for the use of
said stored water; the moneys received
to be deposited into the Treasury to
the credit of miscellaneous receipts.
54 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
KXISTING LAW
(Flood Control Act, approved August 18,
1941, Public Law 228, 77th Cong.)
Sec. 3. That the following works of
improvement for the benefit of naviga¬
tion and the control of destructive
floodwaters and other purposes are
hereby adopted and authorized in the
interest of national security and the
stabilization of employment, and shall
be prosecuted as speedily as may be
consistent with budgetary requirements,
under the direction of the Secretary of
War and the supervision of the Chief of
Engineers in accordance with the plans
in the respective reports hereinafter
designated and subject to the conditions
set forth therein: Provided, That pen¬
stocks or other similar facilities adapted
to possible future use in the develop¬
ment of hydroelectric power shall be
installed in any dam herein authorized
when approved by the Secretary of War
upon the recommendation of the Chief
of Engineers and of the Federal Power
Commission: * * *_
Sec. 4, The Secretary of War is
hereby authorized and directed to cause
preliminary examinations and surveys
for flood control, to be made under the
direction of the Chief of Engineers, in
drainage areas of the United States and
its territorial possessions, which include
the following-named localities, * * *_
THIS BILL
S=c. 7. That the following works of
improvement for the benefit of naviga¬
tion and the control of destructive flood-
waters and other purposes are hereby
adopted and authorized in the interest of
the national security and with a view
toward providing an adequate reservoir
of useful and worthy public works for
the post-war construction program, to
be prosecuted under the direction of the
Secretary of War and supervision of the
Chief of Engineers in accordance with
the plans in the respective reports here¬
inafter designated and subject to the
conditions set forth therein: Provided,
That the necessary plans, specifications,
and preliminary work may be prose¬
cuted during the war, with funds from
appropriations heretofore or hereafter
made for flood control, so as to be ready
for rapid inauguration of a post-war pro¬
gram of construction: Provided fur¬
ther, That when the existing critical
situation with respect to materials,
equipment, and manpower no longer
exists, and in any event not later than
immediately following the cessation of
hostilities in the present war, the proj¬
ects herein authorized shall be initiated
as expeditiously as may be consistent
with budgetary requirements and shall
be prosecuted vigorously during the
period of post-war reconversion: And
provided further. That penstocks and
other similar facilities adapted to pos¬
sible future use in the development of
hydroelectric power shall be installed in
any dam herein authorized when ap¬
proved by the Secretary of War on the
recommendation of the Chief of En¬
gineers and the Federal Power Com¬
mission.
Sec. 8. The Secretary of War is
hereby authorized and directed to cause
preliminary examinations and surveys
for flood control and allied purposes,
including channel and major drainage
improvements, to be made under the
direction of the Chief of Engineers, in
drainage areas of the United States and
its Territorial possessions, which include
the following-named localities, * * *,
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 55
EXISTING LAW
(Flood Control Act, approved June 28,
1938, 62 Stat. 1225)
Sec. 7. That in order to effectuate the
policy declared in sections one and two
of the Act of June 22, 1936 (Public,
Numbered 738, Seventy-fourth Con¬
gress), and to correlate the program for
the improvement of rivers and other
waterways by the Department of War
with the program for the improvement
of watersheds by the Department of
Agriculture, works of improvement for
measures of run-off and water-flow
retardation and soil-erosion prevention
on the watersheds of waterways, for
which works of improvement for the
benefit of navigation and the control of
destructive floodwaters and other pro¬
visions have been adopted and author¬
ized to be prosecuted under the direction
of the Secretary of War and supervision
of the Chief of Engineers, are hereby
authorized to be prosecuted by the
Department of Agriculture under the
direction of the Secretary of Agriculture
and in accordance with plans approved
by him. For prosecuting said work and
measures there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000
to be expended at the rate of $2,000,000
per annum during the five-year period
ending June 30, 1944: Provided, That
such words and measures wdiich are
herein authorized to be prosecuted by
the Department of Agriculture may be
carried out on the w'atersheds of the
Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers subject
to the proviso in section 2 of the said
Act of June 22, 1936.
THIS BILL
Sec. 11. That the balance remaining
from the authorization of $10,000,000
provided in section 7 of the Flood Con¬
trol Act approved June 28, 1938, for the
five-year period ending June 30, 1944,
to correlate the program for the im¬
provement of watersheds by the De¬
partment of Agriculture for measures of
run-off and waterflow retardation and
soil-erosion prevention on the water¬
sheds with the program for the im¬
provement of rivers and other water¬
ways by the Department of War is
hereby reauthorized to be expended
during the post-war period by the
Department of Agriculture for the
prosecution of the work authorized in
section 10 of this Act; Provided, That
not more than 20 per centum of the
authorization made available herein
shall be expended on any one project.
Sec. 12. That section 7 of the Act of
June 28, 1938 (Public, Numbered 761,
Seventy-fifth Congress), is hereby
amended by adding at the end of the
first sentence thereof the following:
“The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
authorized in his discretion to undertake
such emergency measures for run-off
retardation and soil-erosion prevention
as may be needed to safeguard lives and
property from floods and the products
of erosion on any w'atershed whenever
fire or any other natural element or
force has caused a sudden impairment
of that watershed: Provided, That not
to exceed $100,000 out of any funds
heretofore or hereafter appropriated for
the prosecution by the Secretary of
Agriculture of works of improvement or
measures for run-off and waterflow
retardation and soil-erosion prevention
on watersheds may be expended during
any one fiscal year for such emergency
measures.”
o
-L- ^
- 0 !»
'wmm. ■■ ■ " ' ''Wv*^-
-jn;ir'''r;v’-«r jhW tr.iA?' ,.:-'T7.s.''':£!T
.ijyi.^rrr, ,
, . ..-, , - •/'• , l!j it* y-sv^i '(’1 »A O b<s>}’*r)
. ■• ,'. > ":* ,- . •' . ,r.:: .i .... h;; em :' -
•■■■■■■ ^ I *
■■■> ►'i-'.m' n!; .li >js« . ij-'i- ')i:v*TnV*<'f’»«Ot*ViH')j|f»T it .tiaS
' * ■<>•'' '«f •' ’ *»» f ■ T'^ b
- ■ • ' V ’>" ' J ■; » V : lU*’. : .i' •-■i’Tii’ ' I'/ ■-”■■ •■- ■' to
V'' ? -•'■ ‘ '< ..-fft Vv/ ■ u-' - «■ > Ml ' "M'-.'.' i>i
- />. -.’I'f' ■■> r- 1-. ( tv Bw
. . vf i ': .'. -I.'l .* J V *'•> t-r . ..if ‘ Sih
. I'^'r ■...'• '^ 3 ihj/' to JX5*,_ .-riV^. : ^ nj) . f l.y'.m^4ttr^r
.'7». ■••M.ili'Af \A v<5 'A :>*>,.* • 'ii 1'.^
■* rryx t .
■ '. •* • * » * . •' ' # r-r . ^ ^ Ji I ' ■ .*4 k' * I ’ l\|> SI%f0 ■
.■■ ■'/: i'sjlK’ f"'-- .'•. ’o :ia-j ' :- • 'I- a!!! ■*.♦ V>
-■ '-.y vtf ,ii‘ .'■ ■;;.»! V i? 'i'> kiio./ .'.jnjUiSfmr.
-■ •; >\it t'T >i i; u<^ ■ -•--I'l’ j '.-''-i> '■■ ; rs>tr<T' V» • i
.- »r .' ri.t*. ..r'l- r. 1*. -.s .sjatvioiujri
\,. - “Ju 4 i.. .Ar-J '■e.-'-'-y.' viVv.-i .i r f ,' Ita
'<1' .»./
.1
Vvj r.
iV
■>* H* iio^- li.t'iSy
'■•%' ■ !<> t, S"*: ' - TiJ^'v-rta 1..
; i;v / t f .'.> rriituTif^l^
'n V.. r '■.'•■ '''i jfj *• '.'i -■ '• -1 i'f 'll'j i •> '!'•, I . J fcviaJv
j;..''%' .i.sW ::v/. ..t ,£.ijv.,;r( .'■»' • MKi
.r. . ,T... - ' .-rS'^r Ox- 1.,J( . -ti I '* lA (.'
/ •'’■• .; V\ V.f •• • • >11 ■.' • 'y
i ji-i'w ’.C'l- l.-Ji . '■ i V .L'TSiTOlUy.s
V 'V t ■ w x ,0i. . . . ..!> vA‘u>i >ia ?o
V lij,-: , '■' 7 "<■• T..
A.-;.
■o.'t » . it ■ » “ ’
;■ ; ■* V- ^ 'i.'.f
. H -AH
' ■ ••■■. i
41 ,7 t
-?■{., -M -j.j i r.oiisiv.y/;
;i f'ln^ T.r. ■■■ ‘ r ^ j ‘ ■ VA wg.**- 1 >>'» ’* I'JT. ^^7 fj
:f'. ' I ' iJifX-,: Of. i'-' ■ -v. . . dj
' > ' t (It i iV W \ • 'x-!;a'>tr--' '».VvJ
ui - jjiif./Li /JiiWJH f'/f{'*
- .;i; . , .. ;T,.- ,T r.:lt’ • .VV ii'.iyl ,(«?; n.rr^ xairi^'^
.I;-'. f /-. br.
^ y®’''ij, v;t! i< 'V'.i :-Wi' r , i.rC Ji’l '
S"}-: ' ;.' ! ,J '. ! W 6^1.- ■»<*' »« .
I' •/ - r • .gl * ■»• >9 I.tjt. 9 . r J K •^,«Tpi * 1* •» • ’»i« • .»
» I'Tfr-.' .'h . '.-iW- fi I fbaiUjUrjit A
I'jiv V . 'fi Iiio-.J -Vj-^i-rAvr •:.< :.£»y 4,- --l' .iS'l- .-..i.ojJlirii -D'
*»,. , I; . . T' -■) u'j 'AH ;ij Vi :•*• ■.f.'ui.: -i rt i .?»rx Iwtrtr.jV.^
' 4*
( j ■ •;
!>
'•-•.j.' ■ "I'. j •. ■•• 'lyt-
*T*l5 ^
•' ,;a
-rt- !• .o -.' AJ...:- ■ ..i
" 'U'
..J Ir't-
‘trl
# ■ .' ' .« '
; ; ttf '?<» '
. a.'j !• 1 -i:».l'.
'/r .
.TaU?«
[',•« ‘'''‘•
iriin •!
iI-«.
'■ " t » ■;
, li i-
>■(>:; !•■'£ uaki..i(T.t. »
.. .v.'vt/y
'4.!.( !:■'*; ‘Ia>
'* '
i^T . 'ctj
-nr^y 'u- >1 £ 9T^.'
>
■ ..■ Art'..'*'
tu^o'ioA
d'
-♦'T’
K •-
V' ’
.\r- .»?»'
•iii
/'M
V.'
' if Y 4 I
4 ' I ..
,T i.
/.C‘ 1.,
'-J I
1
ll
78th CONGEESS
2d Session
Union Calendar No. 442
R. 4485
[Report No. 1309]
IN THE HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES
March 27, 1944
Mr. Whittington introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Flood Control
March 29, 1944
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
and ordered to be printed
A BILL
Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Bepresenta-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That the words “flood control’’ as used in section 1 of the
4 Act of June 22, 1936, shall be construed to include channel
5 and major dramage improvements, and that hereafter Eederal
6 investigations and improvements of rivers and other water-
7 ways for flood control and allied purposes shall be under
8 the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the War De-
9 partment under the direction of the Secretary of War and
10 supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Eederal investi-
11 gations of watersheds and measures for run-off and water-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds
shall he under the jurisdiction of and shall he prosecuted
by the Department of Agriculture under the direction of the
Secretary of Agriculture, except as otherwise provided by
Act of Congress.
Sec. 2. That section 3 of the Act approved June 22,
1936 (Public, Numbered 738, Seventy-fourth Congress), as
amended by section 2 of the Act approved June 28, 1938
(Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress) , shall apply
to all works authorized in this Act, except that for any chan¬
nel improvement or channel rectification project provisions
(a) , (h) , and (c) of section 3 of said Act of June 22, 1936,
shall apply thereto, and except as otherwise provided by
law: Provided, That the authorization for any flood-control
project herein adopted requiring local cooperation shall expire
five years from the date on which local interests are notified
in writing by the War Department of the requirements of
local cooperation, unless said interests shall within said time
furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that
the required cooperation will be furnished.
Sec. 3. In order to fully utilize dam and reservoir areas
under the control of the War Department, the Chief of
Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of War,
is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate recreation,
conservation, and other facilities thereat advantageous to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
interests of the United States, or to permit the construction,
maintenance, and operation of such facilities. The Secretary
of War is authorized to grant leases of lands, structures, or
facihties in said areas for such periods and upon such terms
as he may deem reasonable. All moneys received for such
leases or privileges shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 4. That the Secretary of War is authorized to sell
to States, municipahties, private concerns, or individuals, at
such prices and on such terms as he may deem reasonable,
for domestic and industrial uses surplus water that may be
available at anv reservoir under the control of the War
•/
Department. All moneys received from such sales shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscel¬
laneous receipts.
Sec. 5. Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Secretary
of War to prescribe regulations for the use of storage avail¬
able for flood control or navigation at all reservoirs con¬
structed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the
basis of such purposes, and the operation of any such project
shall be in accordance with such regulations.
Sec. 6
taiy of War and the Chief of Engineers any dam and reservoir
project operated under the direction of the Secretary of
War can be consistently used for reclamation of arid lands.
^Hereafter, whenever in the opinion of the Secre-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to pre¬
scribe regulations for the use of the storage available for
such purpose, and the operation of any such project shall
be in accordance with such regulations. Such rates, as the
Secretary of the Interior may deem reasonable, shall be
charged for the use of said stored water; the moneys re¬
ceived to be deposited into the Treasury to the credit of
miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 7. That the following works of improvement for
the benefit of navigation and the control of destructive flood
waters and other purposes are hereby adopted and author¬
ized in the interest of the national security and with a view
toward providing an adequate reservoir of useful and worthy
public works for the post-war construction program, to be
prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the
plans in the respective reports hereinafter designated and
subject to the conditions set forth therein: Provided, That
the necessary plans, specifications, and preliminary work
may be prosecuted during the war, with funds from appro¬
priations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control, so
as to be ready for rapid inauguration of a post-war program
of construction: Provided further, That when the existing
critical situation with respect to materials, equipment, and
manpower no longer exists, and in any event not later than
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
\
immediately following the cessation of hostilities in the
present war, the projects herein authorized shall he initiated
as expeditiously as may be consistent with budgetary re¬
quirements and shall be prosecuted vigorously during the
period of post-war reconversion : And provided further, That
penstocks and other similar facilities adapted to possible
future use in the development of hydi’oelectric power shall
be installed in any dam herein authorized when approved
by the Secretary of War on the recommendation of the
j
Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission.
Connecticut Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $30,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Connecticut Eiver Basin: Provided,
That neither this authorization nor previous authorizations
shall be construed to authorize the construction of a high
dam at the Wilhamsville site.
Thames Eiver Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for the Thames Eiver Basin at an
estimated cost of $7,200,000.
6
1 Housatonio Eivee Basin
2 The project for the Thomaston Reservoir on the Nauga-
3 tuck River, for flood control in the Housatonic River
4 Basin, Connecticut, is hereby authorized substantially in
5 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
6 Engineers in House Document Numbered 338, Seventy-
7 seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
8 $5,151,000.
9 Susquehanna River Basin
10 The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936,
11 to provide for local protection works on the Susquehanna
12 River at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is hereby modified sub-
13 stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
14 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 702,
15 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
16 cost of $2,227,000.
17 The project for flood protection at Tyrone, Pennsyl-
18 vania, on the Little Juniata River, Pennsylvania, is hereby
19 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
20 tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num-
21 bered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an
22 estimated cost of $1,392,000.
23 The plan for flood control in southern New York and
21 eastern Pennsylvania authorized by the Act of June 22,
25 1936, as modified by the Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby
7
1 further modified to include the South Plymouth and Gene-
2 gantslet Eesei*voirs on tributaries of the Chenango River
3 substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
4 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 702,
5 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
6 additional cost of $4,755,000.
7 The plan for the Raystown Reservoir on the Raystown
8 Branch of the Juniata River, Pennsylvania, for flood con-
9 trol and other purposes, substantially in accordance with
10 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
11 Document Numbered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec-
12 ond session, is approved, and there is hereby authorized to
13 be appropriated the sum of $2,000,000 for the initiation
14 and partial accomplishment thereof.
15 " Mobile Rivee Basih— Alabama-Coosa Rivee Basin
1§ In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
17 authorized the completion of the Allatoona Reservoir on the
18 Etowah River, Georgia, approved in the Act of August 18,
19 1941, at an estimated cost of $14,400,000.
20 Lowee Mississippi Rivee
21 The project for flood control and improvement of the
22 Lower Mississippi River adopted by the Act of May 15,
23 1928, as amended by subsequent Acts of Congress, is
24 hereby modified in accordance with the recommendations
25 of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 509,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, and, as modified,
is hereby adopted and there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated, in addition to the sums previously authorized,
$200,000,000 for the accomplishment of the purposes set
forth in said document.
The project for flood control on the Boeuf and Tensas
Eivers and Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the reconunenda-
tions of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Num¬
bered 151, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $5,013,000.
The project for flood control on the Big Sunflower, Little
Sunflower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver Eivers and their tribu¬
taries, and on Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal, Bogue Phalia,
Ditchlow Bayou, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou, Mississippi,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 516, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $3,752,000.
The project for flood protection in the backwater area
of the Yazoo Eiver authorized in the Flood Control Act of
August 18, 1941, is hereby amended to authorize the Chief
of Engineers, in his discretion, to include improvements for
the protection of the Satartia area at an estimated additional
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 V
22
23
24
cost of $1,061,000 or, in liis discretion, to include improve¬
ments for the protection of the Satartia area plus its extension
at an estimated additional cost of $1,952,000.
Red-Ouachita Rivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act of
August 18, 1941, for the Little Missouri River in Arkansas,
at an estimated cost of $3,800,000.
Arkansas Rivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to he appropriated the sum of $35,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Arkansas River Basin.
The projects for local flood protection on the Arkansas
River are hereby modified and authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 447, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated additional
cost of $10,299,400.
The project on tributaries of the Eountaine Que Bouille
River for flood protection at Colorado Springs, Colorado, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
H. R. 4485 - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
Numbered 186, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated cost of $500,000.
The project on Purgatoire Piver for local flood protection
at Trinidad, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 387, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $909,000.
White Pivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $45,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified hy the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the White Piver Basin.
Uppee Mississippi Pivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Upper Mississippi Piver
Basin.
The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936,
for local flood protection on the Mississippi Piver at the
Sainte Genevieve Levee District Numbered 1, Missouri, is
hereby modified substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
Numbered 727, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $141,000.
The project on the Mississippi Eiver for local flood pro¬
tection at Sabula, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 328, Seventy-
seventh ’ Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
$25,000.
The project on the Galena Eiver, for local flood protec¬
tion at Galena, Illinois, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 336, Seventy-seventh
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $300,000.
The project for flood control on the Illinois Eiver is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 692, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $111,500.
The project on Elk Creek and Tm'key Eiver for local
flood protection at Elkport, Iowa, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 700,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $13,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
Red Rivee.of the Noeth Basin
The projects for flood control for Red Lake River, Min¬
nesota, including Clearwater River, Minnesota, are hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
345, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $902,940.
Missouei Rivee Basin
The general comprehensive plan for flood control and
other purposes in the Missouri River Basin approved by the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by subsequent Acts, is
hereby expanded to include the plan of improvement for
flood control, irrigation, power development, navigation, and
other purposes, substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session;
and as expanded is approved; and, in addition to previous
authorizations, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $200,000,000 for the partial accomplishment of
the comprehensive plan as modified and expanded : Provided,
That nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating below
Sioux City any demand upon the water resources of the
Missouri River Basin above Sioux Cit}^ in excess of that
now authorized by existing law: And provided further, That
portions of the storage authorized for the main stem of the
13
1 river shall be placed on tributaries if the Secretary of War
2 and the Chief of Engineers find such action advisable for silt
3 control and In order to make more water readily available
4 for agricultural and industrial use without impairment of
5 flood control below Sioux City and without increasing the
6 authorized hmit of cost.
7 The project adopted by the Act of June 22, 1936, to
8 provide flood protection for the Kansas Citys, Kansas and
9 Missouri, is hereby modified and extended to provide for
16 improvement substantially in accordance with the recom-
11 mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
12 Numbered 342, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
13 estimated additional cost for the modified project of
11 $8,445,000.
15 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
16 authorized the completion of the plan approved In the Act
1"^ of August 18, 1941, for Cherry Creek and tributaries, Colo-
16 rado, at an estimated cost of $7,500,000.
19 The project on Knife Kiver for local flood control at
20 Beulah, Korth Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
21 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
22 neers in House Document Numbered 252, Seventy-eighth
23 Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $26,100.
21 The project on Knife Kiver for local flood control at
25 Hazen, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 252, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $6,600.
The project on Milk Diver adopted by the Act of June
22, 1936, to provide local flood protection at Harlem, Mon¬
tana, is hereby modified substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Docu¬
ment Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost of $21,100.
The project on Milk Elver for local flood protection at
Havre, Montana, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Senate Document Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost of $313,100.
The project on Boyer Eiver for local flood control on
East Fork of Boyer Eiver at Denison, Iowa, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
254, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $17,830.
The project on Nishnabotna Eiver for local flood control
at Hamburg, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 253, Sevent3"-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $236,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The project on Bear Creek for local flood protection at
Morrison, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
m House Document Numbered 356, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $220,000.
OHIO EIVEE BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $70,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Ohio Biver Basin, including the
following projects in tributary basins, namely:
The local flood protection works in the Lake Chautauqua
and Chadakoin Eiver area, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 685, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $135,500;
The local flood protection works at Dillonvale and
Adena on Short Creek, Ohio, substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 889, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $158,200;
The local flood protection works at Taylorsville on Salt
Eiver, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
1
2
3
4
5
6
n
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Numbered 105, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $129,350;
The local flood protection works at Latrohe on Lo3^al-
hanna Creek, Pennsylvania, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 444, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $112,500;
The Burr Oak Keservoir on the Hocking Eiver, Ohio,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 762,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $400,000;
The Eowlesburg Eeservoir on the Cheat Elver, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in the report submitted to Congress by
the Secretary of War on November 26, 1942, at an esti¬
mated cost of $29,230,000; and
The improvement in the Youghiogheny Eiver Basin,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in a report submitted to Congress b}^ the
Secretary of War on March 29, 1943, at an estimated cost
of $37,970,000.
Geeat Lakes Basin
The project for the Panther Mountain Eeservoir on
Moose Eiver, New York, is hereby authorized substantially
1
2
3
4
5
6
n
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
\
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 405, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
$600,000.
The project for flood control on Chittenango Creek and
tributaries. New York, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 625, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$111,000.
The projects for flood control on Owasco Inlet and Outlet,
Montville and Dry Creeks, State Ditch, and Crane Brook,
New York, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 815, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $64,200.
COLOEADO EiVEE BaSIN (TeXAS)
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for the North Concho Eiver, Texas, at
an estimated cost of $4,800,000.
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for Pecan Bayou, Texas, at an estimated
cost of $1,560,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
18
Beazos Rivee Basin
In addition to previous antliorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of Whitney Reservoir in accord¬
ance with the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
for the Brazos River Basin, at an estimated cost of
$15,000,000.
Rio Geande Basin
The project on Willow Creek for local flood protection
at Creede, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in Senate Document Numbered 104, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $68,500.
San Diego Rivee Basin
The project on the San Diego River for local flood pro¬
tection at San Diego, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 635,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $370,000.
Ventuea Rivee Basin
The projects on the Ventura River and tributaries for
local flood protection at Ventura and Ojai, California, are
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
19
ISTumbered 323, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $1,600,000.
Santa Ana Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
the prosecution of the projects approved in the Act of June
22, 1936, as modified by the Act of June 28, 1938, for the
Santa Ana River Basin and for the protection of Orange
County, California, including the projects on Lytle and
Cajon Creeks for local flood protection at San Bernardino
and Colton, California, in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers dated
February 11, 1944.
Los Angeles-San Gabeiel Basin and Ballona Ceeek
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $25,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of August 18, 1941, for Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Rivers and Ballona Creek, California.
Saceamento-San Joaquin Riyee Basin
SACEAMENTO EIVEE
The projects for the control of floods and other purposes
on the Sacramento River, California, adopted by the Acts
approved March 1, 1917, May 15, 1928, August 26, 1937,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
and August 18, 1941, are hereby modified substantially in
accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Engi¬
neers for Elvers and Harbors dated February 7, 1944, with
such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secre¬
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers ma}^ be advisable,
at an estimated cost of $46,056,000; and in addition to
previous authorizations there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for the prosecution of
the modified projects: Provided, That this modification of
the project shall not be construed to authorize tlie construc¬
tion of a high dam at the Table Mountain site.
SA^r JOAQUIN EIVEE
The project for the Isabella Eeservoir on the Kern
Eiver for flood control and other purposes in the San J oaquin
Valley, California, is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in his report dated Januar}^ 26, 1944, contained in
House Document Numbered , Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $6,800,000.
The plan for the Terminus and Success Eeservoirs on
the Kaweah and Tide Elvers for flood control and other
purposes in the San Joaquin Valley, California, in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Flood Control Coimnittee Document Numbered 1, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, is approved, and there is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
1
hereby authorized $4,600,000 for initiation and partial
accomphshment of the plan.
The project for flood control and other purposes for the
Kings Elver and Tulare Lake Basin, California, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the plans con¬
tained in House Document Numbered 630, Seventy-sixth
Congress, third session, with such modifications thereof as in
the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers may be advisable at an estimated cost of $19,700,-
000: Provided, That the conditions of local cooperation
specified in said document shall not apply : Provided further,
That the Secretary of War shall make arrangements for pay¬
ment to the United States by the State or other responsible
agency, either in lump sum or annual Installments, for con¬
servation storage when used: Provided further. That the
f
division of costs between flood control, and krigation and
other water uses shall be determined by the Secretary of War
on the basis of continuing studies by the Bureau of Eeclama-
tion, the War Department, and the local organizations.
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on
various streams in the Merced County Stream Group in the
San Joaquin Valley is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 473, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $1,300,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
24
25
22
The plan of improvement for flood control and other pur¬
poses on the Lower San Joaquin Eiver and tributaries, in¬
cluding Tuolumne and Stanislaus Eivers, in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Flood Con¬
trol Committee Document Numbered 2, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, is approved, and there is hereby au¬
thorized $8,000,000 for initiation and partial accompHsh-
ment of the plan.
COQUILLE EiVEE BaSIN
The project for flood protection on the Coquille Eiver,
Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 620, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $143,000.
Nehalem Eivee Basin
The project for flood protection on the Nehalem Eiver,
Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 621, Sevent3^-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $23,000.
Willamette Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $20,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Willamette Eiver Basin, with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief
of Engineers may be advisable.
i
Columbia Rivee Basin
The projects on the Snake River for local flood protection
at Heise, Roberts, and Weiser, Idaho, are hereby authorized,
substantially in accordance v^ith the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 452,
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $743,000.
The projects on the Palouse River and tributaries for
local flood protection at Pullman and Colfax, Washington,
are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 888, Seventy-seventh Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $478,000.
The project on Alkali Canyon for local flood protection
at Arlington, Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 631, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $118,000.
WiLLAPA Rivee Basin
«
The project on the Willapa River for local flood pro¬
tection at Raymond, Washington, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 701,
1
2
3
4:
5
6
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $127,000.
Sec. 8. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and
directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for
flood control and allied purposes, including channel and major
drainage improvements, to be made under the direction of
the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the United States
and its Territorial possessions, which include the following-
named localities, and the Secretary of Agriculture is author¬
ized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and
y
surveys for run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-erosion
prevention on such drainage areas; the cost thereof to be
paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for
such purposes: Provided, That after the regular or formal
reports made on any examination, survey, project, or work
under way or proposed are submitted to Congress, no supple¬
mental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless
authorized by law except that the' Secretary of War may
cause a review of any examination or survey to be made
and a report thereon submitted to the Congress if such review
is required by the national defense or by changed physical
or economic conditions : And 'provided further, That the Gov¬
ernment shall not be deemed to have entered upon any
project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned in this Act until the project for the proposed work
shall have been adopted by law :
Chipola Eiver, Alabama and Florida.
Wacasassa Eiver and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Gilchrest and Levy Counties, Florida.
Oklawaha Fiver and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida.
Scajaquada Creek and its tributaries, New York.
Buffalo Fiver, Minnesota.
Wild Fice Fiver, Minnesota.
Marsh Fiver, Minnesota.
Sand Hill Fiver, Minnesota.
Fed Lake Fiver, Minnesota.
Foseau Fiver, Minnesota.
Snake Fiver, Minnesota.
Middle Fiver, Minnesota.
Tamarac Fiver, Minnesota.
Two Fivers, Minnesota.
Warroad Fiver and Bull Dog Creek, Minnesota.
Mississippi Fiver and its tributaries, in the County of
Aitkin, Minnesota.
Apple Fiver, Joe Daviess County, Illinois.
Maumee Fiver, Indiana and Ohio.
Indian Creek, Indiana.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Osage River, Missouri and Kansas.
San Rafael Creek and its tributaries, California.
Bayamon and Hondo Rivers and their tributaries.
Municipality of Bayamon, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 9. That the sum of $810,000,000 is hereby author¬
ized to be appropriated for carrying out the improvements
herein, the sum of $10,000,000 additional is authorized to be
appropriated and expended in equal amounts by the Depart¬
ments of War and Agriculture for carrying out any examina¬
tion or survey provided for in this Act and any other Acts
of Congress, to be prosecuted by said Departments. The
sum of $1,500,000 additional is authorized to be appropriated
and expended by the Federal Power Commission for carry¬
ing out any examinations and surveys provided for in this
Act or any other Acts of Congress, to be prosecuted by the
said Federal Power Commission. - < ^
Sec. 10. That the following works of improvement for
run-off and waterflow retardation, and soil-erosion preven¬
tion, are hereby adopted and authorized in the interest of the
national security and with a view toward an adequate reser¬
voir of useful and worthy public works for the post-war con-
struction program to be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture, under the direction of the Secretary of Agricul¬
ture, in accordance with the plans of the respective reports
hereinafter designated and subject to the conditions set forth
1
2
3
4
5
6
n
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
therein : Provided, That the necessary plans and preliminary
'work may he prosecuted during the war with funds from
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such works
so as to he ready for rapid inauguration of post-war con¬
struction: Provided further, That when the existing critical
situation with respect to materials, equipment, and manpower,
no longer exists and in any event not later than immediately
following the cessation of hostilities in the present war, the
projects herein authorized shall he initiated as expeditiously
as may be consistent with budgetary requirements and shall
be prosecuted vigorously during the period of post-war
reconversion.
Lois Angeles Eivee Basin
The program on the Los Angeles Elver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom-
_ ; ^
mendation of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House
■
Document Numbered 426, Seventy-seventh Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$8,380,000.
Teinity Eivee Basin (Texas)
The program on the Trinity Eiver watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
Numbered 708, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost to the United States of $32,000,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.15
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
Little Tallatiatciiie Eivee Wateeshed
The program on the Little Tallahatchie Eiver water¬
shed is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the
recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 892, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,221,000.
Coosa Eivee Wateeshed (Above Eome, Geoegia)
The program on the Coosa Eiver watershed above
Eome, Georgia, is hereby approved substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of
Agriculture in House Document Numbered 236, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $1,233,000.
Little Sioux Eivee Wateeshed
The program on the Little Sioux Eiver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 268, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,280,000.
Potomac Eivee Wateeshed
The program on the Potomac Eiver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Document Numbered 269, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of $859,000.
COLOEADO River Wateeshed (Texas)
The program on those portions of the Colorado River
watershed included in the watersheds of Pecan Bayou, San
Saba River, Brady Creek, and the area tributary to the main
stream of the Colorado River below its confluence with the
Concho River and above the mouth of Pecan Bayou, is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$2,693,000.
Washita River Watershed
The program on the Washita River watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 275, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost to the United States of $11,243,000.
Sec. 11. That the balance remaining from the authoriza¬
tion of $10,000,000 provided in section 7 of the Flood Con¬
trol Act approved June 28, 1938, for the five-year period
ending June 30, 1944, to correlate the program for the im¬
provement of watersheds by the Department of Agriculture
for measures of run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
erosion prevention on the watersheds with the program for
the improvement of rivers and other waterways by the De¬
partment of War is hereby reauthorized to be expended dur¬
ing the post-war period by the Department of Agriculture
for the prosecution of the work authorized in section 10 of this
Act: Provided, That not more than 20 per centum of the
authorization made available herein shall be expended on any
one project.
Sec. 12. That section 7 of the Act of June 28, 1938
(Public, N’umbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress), is hereby
amended by adding at the end of the first sentence thereof
the following : “The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
authorized in his discretion to undertake such emergency
♦
measures for run-off retardation and soil-erosion prevention
as may be needed to safeguard lives and property from floods
and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire
or any other natural element or force has caused a sudden
impairment of that watershed : Provided, That not to exceed
$100,000 out of any funds heretofore or hereafter appro¬
priated for the prosecution by the Secretary of Agricultiu-e of
works of improvement or measures for run-off and water-
flow retardation and soil-erosion i)revention on watersheds
may be expended during any one fiscal year for such emer¬
gency measures.”
a
cr 5
fp
to
rn-
P
o
o
9 9
c
p
p s
^ fD
o
W
o
s S'
o cr
O' S'
(t> ®
^ w
P, o
p p
(t (T>
P
W
a
a>
•-S
(f
P-
<x>
O >
p p
to
:o
B
B
CD
4^
fD
to
CD
4^
O
O
Pi
O
O
P
H
O
w
I-S
W
!2!
Si
o
!z!
O O O
JT' "^ '-!
s “ 2.
0-1 ® rS
13 (TQ
rt-
0 4^
W l-i" i->
^ CD
O CD _
r>-, i-j o
“ 2
p
Hj P CO
M O S-
^ O' 2.
►O p
O o
® g' ^
m
t-b o
o CD
>-3 ^
>
C9
K-b
r
r
tts p
O B
O
pj >73
O ^
? S'
00
to H
o ^
ccQ
K ^
CQ Z
S O
o M
(D
•a
0
«7
GQ
OQ
z
o
o
;o
70
00
Ol
a
9
O
9
n
9
«
9
CL.
9
z
e
•t^
to
c«
' ■
7Sth-2nd, No. 81
Office ef Budget and Finance
Legislative Reports and Service Section
DIG-EST OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS OF INTEREST TO- THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(Issued May 9* actions of Monday, May 8, 1944)
(For staff of the Department only)
CONTENTS
Sriations, . ,8,11
g and currency . 6
vat ion. . . 17
-Farm mhoj^inery. . . 4
Fisheries^, . l6
Flag day. . . .25
;'^lood control^, . 7,19
• Food adm. (general) . . 3^
Foreign trade . 23
Forestry . 2,11,24
Irrigation . 21
Legislative-executive
relationships . ,l4
Lend-lease , .f..,«,.....,.l
Monopilies . 23
Personnel . ,10
Petroleum . I3
Price control . 3i28
Priorities .
Public administration. .26
Puerto Rico . 22
Rationing . 4,18,29
Reclamation . 5
Small business . 12
Soil conservatioh, . . . . .7»15
Surplus property . I5
Tpocation. . . . . . . 20
Transportation . 9»27
SENATE
1, LEND-LEASE. Passed, 63~lV H, R, 4254, to continue the Lend-Lease Act for 1 year,
withra Vandenberg, Mich., amendment limiting settlement powers (pp. 4l77"9l)* ,
2, FORESTRY, Agriculture and Forestry Committee reported vrithout .amendment H. R.
3848,' to increase from $3,000,000, to $6,500,000 the total appropriation authori¬
zation for the national survey of forest resources (S, Rept. 863) (p. 4174),
’ 3.
f,
;• 4.
5.
6,
PRICE CONTROL, Sen, Murray, Mont.^ submitted an amendment which he and Sen,
Wherry, Nebr. , intend to propose to the price-control bill, together vdth an
explanatory' statement , to make additional provision for court review of OPA
orders (pp. 4174-5).
f / •
FARM-MACHINERY RATIONING** Sen, Capper, Ians., criticized the handling of farm-
machinery rationing and inserted a letter frorfi a farmer on this subject (pu.
4175-6).
RECLAMATION. Irrigation and Reclamation Committee reported xdth amendments H, R,
3570, to provide as an emergency vrar project for the partial construction of
the Hungry Horse Dam, Mont. ( S, Rept, 8b2).,'and S,. 1782, to amend the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939 so as to extend the time in which amendatory contracts may
be made (S. Rbpt, 859) (p* 4l74). . ... . > '
BAN^i^G AND CURRENCY. At the request of Sen, McCorran, Nev. , a. pamphlet by F, H,-
^ownell, ”Hard Money, ” was ordered printed as S. Doc. 192 (p. 4l75)«.
HOUSE
) * .
. -i
FLOOD CONTROL, Began and concluded general debate on H, R, 4485» the ^i/hitting-
ton flood-control bill ■(pp, 4l99~234) •• Rep. ^'fnittington. Miss*, described the
bill’s provisions (pt. 4204-12), Rep. Case, S, Dak,., discussed flood damage y
to farm lands near the Missouri River (pp. 4226-7*)* Re-i,. Fisher, Tex., com- ^
mended the soil-conservation practices advocated by SGS (pp. 4231-2).. For the |
bin- s provisions, see
g. INDEPENDENT OEFICES APPROPRIATION BILL. Reps. Voodrum, Fitzpatrick, Starnes, a
Hendricks, Wigglesworth, Dirksen, and Case were appointed House conferees on «
this hill, H. . R. • 4070 -(p. 4l94) . Senate conferees yrere appointed Mar, 23* 3
9. TRANSPORTATION. Agreed, to the conference report on H. R. 326I, providing for re-|
turn to private ownership of Great Lakes vessels of 1,000 tons or less (p.
4194), This hill will now he sent to the President.
10. PERSONNEL. Agreed, without amendment, to H. Res. 535» providing $30,000 addi-»
tional for the investigations of the House Civil Service Committee pursuant to
H. Res. 16 (op. 4194-6). This resolution had been reported hy the Accounts
Committee earlier in the day (p. 4252).
11. APPROPRIATIONS; FORESTRY. Received from the President a supplemental appropria¬
tion estimate of $596,000 for the Forest Service in connection with administpa.^
tion of increased demands for forest timber, surveys and appraisals to furth'pv^ .■
sales, and the recently enacted sustained-yield forest-management hill (H.Dop,
576). To Appropriations Committee, '(p. 4^52.)
12. SMALL BUSINESS. Received NPB’s proposed legislation '’to amend" the Small Businesr
Mobilization Act. To Banking and Currency Committee, (p. 4252.)
13. PETROLEUM. Rep, Voorhis, Calif ., ^discussed petroleum’s part in America’ s
future (pp. 323^^2). '■ ■ . .
14. LEGISLATIVE- EXECUTIVE RELATIONS. Rep, Kleberg,. Tex. , discussed "government' and
the -functions of the legislative and executive branches (pp. 424S-5l).
. . • ' ' BILLS INTRODUCED ' ’ ' ' '
15. SURPLUS PROPERTY; SOIL CONSERVATION. By Sen. ‘ ‘Guiette , Iowa, S. 1895, to pro- |
vide for making surplus property available for soil and yater conservation vc( jj
through the distribution thereof, by grant or loan, to public- bodies organized '
under State laws. To Agriculture and Forestry Committee, (p. 4174.) ^
16. FISHERIES. By Rep. Welch, Calif., 'H. ConV Res. 84, e:)^ressing the sense of ’
Congress that the Fish and Wildlife Service should develop the fish industry in
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. To Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee!
(p. 4252.) ■ .
ITEMS IN APPEtTDiX ' ■ ■ ■ ;
' . I
17. CONSERVATION. Sen. Capper, Kans., inserted Secretary .}/ickard' s speech, deliver? |
before the American Wildlife Conference, on conservation of agricultural re- j
sources (pp. A2376-9). ■ !
18. RATIONING. Rep. Woodruff,' Mich., inserted a Bay City (Mich.) Times article crit
cizing the recent relaxing of meat rationing, in view of former rationing an¬
nouncements (p. A2375) •
19. FLOOD ' CONTROL. Rep. O-’Mahoney, Wyo,, inserted a St. Louis Post-Dispatch edi¬
torial discussing floods and their control* in the Missouri River Basin by use
of irrigation (p. A2370)»
Rep., Bimpson, Ill;, inserted a Pike County Republican and Calhoun News
editorials urging flood control measures for the Mississippi River. Valley
(pp. A23SO-1).
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
round fight, and in my opinion, we still have
13 rounds to go.”
“Any time you underestimate an oppo¬
nent,” he said recently, “you are going to get
knocked on your backsides.”
Young Johnson has been shot up three
times and his fellow fiyers credit his courage
and fiying skill with keeping him alive.
He thinks that Nazi pilots are “no better
or no worse than American.” but believes they
lack initiative.
PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I may have per¬
mission to address the House tomorrow
for 30 minutes at the conclusion of the
regular business and any orders hereto¬
fore entered.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
Is so ordered.
There was n.o objection.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my
remarks in two instances.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks and to insert therewith a news¬
paper article and some observations
thereon.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Ml’. PAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks and include therein a statement
made by me at a press conference.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears In the
Appendix.]
Mr. PISH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani¬
mous consent to extend my remarks and
to include a letter and an editorial.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend my
1*01X1 irks
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have not
taken up much of the time of the House
to discuss the Senate amendments re¬
stricting the activities of the Tennessee
Valley Authority. But since that propo¬
sition has gone to conference, I want to
appeal to the House conferees not to
agree to any amendment which would
hamstring the T. V. A. in any way.
I was coauthor of the bill that created
the Tennessee Valley Authority. I have
fought its battles from the very begin¬
ning. It has wrought the greatest de¬
velopment of ancient or modern times.
It has brought new life to a great sec¬
tion of the country, reduced light and
power rates to then* proper levels, and
furnished a yardstick for the rest of the
Nation. Prom the T. V. A. has sprung
our rural electrification program which
has spread through the Nation, and
brought to the farmers of the country the
greatest benefits they have ever enjoyed.
In the T. V. A. area today there are
more war materials being produced per¬
haps than in any other area in the world.
The T. V. A. is contributing more to the
war effort than almost any other insti¬
tution under the shining sun.
It would be a serious mistake to adopt
amendments that would hamstring or
cripple the T. V. A., especially at this
time when it is carrying out the greatest
program ever developed for the better¬
ment of mankind.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi has expired.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to address the
IJouse for 1 minute.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker,
there is no question but what the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority has made a
marked contribution for the betterment
not only of the area it is serving but
of the entire country. I can remember
when the bill establishing that Authority
was up, the main cry against it was that
it constituted socialism. Many people,
in good faith, made that cry and enter¬
tained that fear. It is just-the contrary.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has been
an incentive for the production and de¬
velopment of private industry. It has
done a real job and has served a real
purpose and it has a tremendous future
in which it can make even greater con¬
tributions than it has in the past for the
development of the free enterprise that
America stands for, a free enterprise not
of 50 years ago, but a free enterprise con¬
sistent with the economic conditions that
exist today.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman has expired.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
By unanimous consent Mr. COMPTON
and Mr. GATHINGS received permission
to extend their remai'ks in the Record.
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RESERVATIONS
FOR RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD
WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I
call up House Resolution 517, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol¬
lows:
Resolved, That Immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution It shall be In
order to move that the House resolve Itself
Into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes, and all points of order against said
4199
bill are hereby waived. That after general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours, to
be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Flood Control, the bill
shall be read for amendment under the 5-
mlnute rule. At the conclusion of the read¬
ing of the bill for amendment, the Commit¬
tee shall rise and report the same to the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and the previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to re¬
commit.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes of the time to the gen¬
tleman from New York [Mr. Pish].
I now yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule which comes be¬
fore the House with the unanimous en¬
dorsement of the Committee on Rules
makes in order the consideration of the
bill (H. R. 4485) — the flood-control bill.
I shall not attempt at this time, in dis¬
cussing the rule, to go into the merits of
the bill itself, leaving that for the Flood
Control Committee; but I would like to
briefly discuss the rule and the underly¬
ing principles back of the consideration
of this flood-control bill.
This is an open rule. The bill for
which the rule provides, comes to the
House in the established way and in ac¬
cord with the policy of the House. It
has been, and is customary for a flood-
control bill to be presented authorizing
the Chief of Engineers to make a survey
and to determine the value of any flood-
control project. In determining the val¬
ue of any flood-control project the pri¬
mary consideration has been the value of
the project. That is to say, no project
has been considered as worthy of adop¬
tion if the cost exceeds the benefits.
Thereafter, matters of this kind are re¬
ferred to the district engineer, the man
on the ground. If it receives a favorable
report from him it goes to the division
engineer. Eventually it goes to the Board
of Rivers and Harbors in Washington,
where it is reviewed by the Chief of Engi¬
neers, and if it is approved by the Chief
of Engineers, the report is then filed with
Congress and referred to the Committee
on Flood Control, which procedure has
been followed in this case.
After extensive hearings the Flood
Control Committee has reported the bill
to the House, The bill is one of the most
comprehensive, if not the most compre¬
hensive flood-control measure reported
to the House up to this date. It seeks in
and by its terms to provide a comprehen¬
sive plan and program of flood relief and
to provide among other things, a reser¬
voir of worth while, worthy projects for
consideration after the war, to provide
worth-while improvements, and at the
same time to provide employment.
Prior to 1936 the flood-control policy
of the Congress was for the most part,
limited to the Mississippi and the Sacra¬
mento Rivers. In 1936, as the member¬
ship will remember, a general policy was
adopted by the Congress and a Nation¬
wide bill was reported. In 1937 another
bill was reported which was confined, for
the most part, to the lower Ohio River.
4200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
In 1938 another comprehensive, Nation¬
wide flood-control bill was reported, and
in 1941 the last flood-control bill was
passed by the Congress, the 1941 bill be¬
ing the last bill passed before the con¬
sideration of the bill which comes before
the House today.
In approving the 1941 bill, the Presi¬
dent stated that he would make no rec¬
ommendations for the carrying out of
the provisions authorized in the 1941 bill
during the war. The same policy, of
course, will be followed with respect to
the present bill, with one or two slight
exceptions. The purpose of H. R. 4485
is to provide essential authorization
which will make possible the immediate
consideration of proper and timely ap¬
propriation measures when the stress and
strain of the war is out of the way.
It will be noted that the rule makes
reference to the fact that all points of
order against the bill are waived. Those
are of very slight importance, but for the
information of the House I call attention
to page 4, line 21. The words “hereto¬
fore or,’’ appearing thereat, refer to ap¬
propriations which would be subject to
a point of order if the rule did not spe¬
cifically waive the point. In substance,
the bill provides that any funds on hand,
heretofore appropriated, may be used,
even during the war, solely for the pur¬
pose of making preliminary plans and in¬
vestigations, compiling specifications,
and matters of that kind. In other
words, if any Member should introduce a
bill to determine whether or not a flood-
control improvement should be made in
his district, the funds would be available
to make the investigation, and for no
other purpose.
On the very last page of the bill, page
30, there is also an exception, which
might be subject to a point of order,
which provides that the Secretary of
Agriculture can use u;-' to $100,000 in any
one year, out of moneys heretofore ap¬
propriated, to take care of emergency
damage. That is to say, particularly in
the western part of the country it fre¬
quently happens that, with the heavy
rains, great landslides, boulders, and
what not come down and endanger towns
and traffic. This section provides that
the Secretary of Agriculture can make
emergency repairs up to but not exceed¬
ing $100,000 in any one year.
I do not think there is any controversy
about the rule, and, as I stated before,
it comes to the House with the unani¬
mous endorsement of the committee.
Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of
my time and I ask unanimous consent
to revise and extends my remarks.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. PISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield my¬
self 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Slaughter] who has just spoken. He
made a very able presentation. He is
a new member of the Rules Committee,
and evidently he has made a thorough
study of the bill before the House and
has presented the facts in a very concise
and able manner.
Mr. Speaker, there was no opposition
to this bill, H. R. 4485, in the Rules Com¬
mittee. It is a bill authorizing the con¬
struction Of certain public works on riv¬
ers and harbors for flood control and
other purposes. As was so well pointed
out, it waives certain points of order.
This bill provides an authorization of
$800,000,000 for flood control. That is
the basic reason given for the items in
the bill, but funds may be used under
provisions of the bill for navigation,
reclamation, and irrigation projects.
Prior to 1938 the States were trying to
carry out through State compacts, flood-
control supervision. Now, since we
adopted the law of 1938, the Federal Gov¬
ernment puts up all the money — 100 per¬
cent, to control floods.
Mr. Speaker, there is very little in
this bill in behalf of the great Empire
State of New York. I could find very
few items that affect New York at all.
I have, however, received a letter from
a constituent of mine in regard to a
project in Vermont, which letter I de¬
sire to read. I call this particular proj¬
ect to the attention of the membership
and hope it will be thoroughly discussed.
I am not familiar with it but certain
charges are made in the letter and I
believe the gentleman from Vermont
[Mr. Plumley] probably has full knowl¬
edge of the facts and will present them
to the House in due course.
This letter is dated May 6, 1944, and is
addressed to me by a constituent, Mr. D.
W. DeWitt, of Walton, N. Y. The letter
reads as follows:
Walton Savings & Loan Association,
Walton, N. Y., May 6. 1944.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I note by the papers that H. R.
4485 will come up for a vote probably next
week. I am very much opposed to the
Williamsville (Vt.) project which is included
in this bill and I want you to use your efforts
to have this eliminated from the bill.
I used to live in Newfane and Brattleboro,
Vt., and I know just what this project is
going to mean to the entire West River Val¬
ley. It would not be so bad if this was simply
a flood-control project and they planned to
construct a dry dam which have been most
successful in the territory around Mont¬
pelier, Vt. This is not a flood-control project
at all but a power project which the ad-
i»inistration is trying to put over on the
people of southeastern Vermont. It Is one
of the biggest frauds which I have ever seen
sponsored in the guise of flood control.
I hope that I may have your assurance
that you will do everything you can to have
the Williamsville project eliminated.
Very truly yours,
D. W. DeWitt,
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not at all
familiar with this project. This bill is
supposed to be a flood-control bill and
not a power-project bill. I hope the gen¬
tleman from Vermont, the very distin¬
guished Representative [Mr. Plumley],
will in his time explain this project. I
have no knowledge of the facts except as
contained in the letter which states spe¬
cifically that it is not a flood-control
project but a power project.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
New York has consumed 5 minutes.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield my¬
self 1^/2 additional minutes.
I feel therefore that it is only fair the
House should have all the facts before it
acts on the bill and this particular proj¬
ect. Mr. Speaker, I am merely calling
the attention of the membership on both
sides of the House as well as the com¬
mittee to the fact that if it is a power
and not a flood-control project and is
opposed by the people of that district it
should be stricken from the bill.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, this bill
comes to the House with a unanimous re¬
port from the Committee on Rules.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FISH. I yield.
Mr. PLUMLEY. I shall undertake to
discuss this measure in my time under
general debate rather than under the
rule.
Mr. PISH. Could the gentleman from
Vermont tell me whether this opposition
by one of my constituents is warranted,
and as to whether it is a power project or
flood-control project?
Mr. PLUMLEY. The opposition is
warranted.
Mr. FISH. That is all I wanted to
know: therefore, if opposition is war¬
ranted I hope the House will consider
this particular project seriously.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FISH. I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. I want to add also that
I believe the opposition is warranted.
Mr. PISH. The statement of both
these distinguished Members of the
House support the contention of my con¬
stituent. I trust therefore at the proper
time that a fight will be made on it and
all the facts presented.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PISH. I yield.
Mr. CLASON. I should like to call the
gentleman’s attention to the proviso on
page 1 of the bill, Connecticut River
Basin, on the question of whether or not
there should be any power in this dam
at the Williamsville site. A proviso was
put right in there that neither this au¬
thorization nor previous authorizations
shall be construed to authorize the con¬
struction of a high dam at the Williams¬
ville site; in other words, in order to
hava power the height of the dam would
have to be increased by 75 feet. The
committee after hearing the witnesses
decided to eliminate power from this site
and therefore put in this provision for
the specific purpose that they cannot
have the 75 additional feet of height on
that dam. Power therefore is eliminated
and the dam will be constructed for flood
control only.
Mr. FISH. I hope the gentleman is
correct, but I suppose that will be de¬
bated upon the floor at the proper time
and that the House will then decide
what it should do.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman from New York has expired.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 min¬
utes to the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall].
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr.
Speaker, practically every district in the
State of New York has at one time or an¬
other in the past been threatened and
ravaged by floods. My district, which is
at the confluence of the Susquehanna
and the Chenango Rivers is certainly one
outstanding example of this. Every
1944
4201
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
once In a while the Chenango River gets
on a rampage and comes down at a ter¬
rific rate from its source and, meeting
the Susquehanna River, produces a bad
situation to the people in my particular
area.
The Whitney Point Dam project which
was instituted about 10 years ago did a
great deal to remedy the trouble at the
junction of the Chenango and Susque¬
hanna Rivers. This plan, however, and
unfortunately, harnesses only the Che¬
nango River because it takes several trib¬
utaries of the Chenango and checks their
flow. It does not improve the Susque¬
hanna menace however. Although
flood walls were erected at Binghamton,
which is at the junction of these two
rivers, they have done little good. A few
miles farther down the river at Johnson
City, Endicott, and Vestal the low¬
lands along the banks of the Susque¬
hanna are still flooded every year with a
great deal of accompanying property
damage in the central and greater Endi¬
cott area on the one side of the Susque¬
hanna and in the Vestal area on the
other.. 1 will say also that no substan¬
tial remedy has ever been offered by the
Army engineers for whatever happens in
this area during floodtime. For that
reason I am thinking very seriously of
asking for additional funds in this bill
when the proper time comes, funds to
improve this Endicott area which is so
greatly in need of some sort of remedy.
I should say in passing that the Whit¬
ney Point Dam project previously re¬
ferred to has been of much value to the
vicinity of my home city of Binghamton
but It has not helped farther down the
river. There are various theories which
the Army engineers should consider put¬
ting into practice. One of them is
dredging, which local flood-control
groups advocate.
A great deal of the sediment of the
Susquehanna and Chenango piles up at
points around the Endicott area and has
formed islands. It has caused the regu¬
lar overflowing of the Susquehanna in
these places and inundating lowlands
where valuable property is located. Un¬
fortunately to date nothing has been
done to remedy the difficulty. I have
talked with several of the Army engi¬
neers about this matter. I personally
believe, which belief is shared by many
of the residents in that area, that dredg¬
ing could be done effectively.
It costs money to do dredging and it
costs money to build flood walls. For
these reasons it will require extra money
in this bill for Endicott and vicinity to
accomplish any degree of effective pro¬
tection from the Susquehanna River.
I ask the House and the committee to
give careful consideration to the matter
because the people of this area have suf¬
fered year after year. It is not a ques¬
tion of suffering every 5 or 10 years, it
is a case of suffering every single year
when the Susquehanna overflows its
banks at that point and a lot of property
is damaged.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman has expired.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
gentleman 1 additional minute. Will
he yield to me?
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FISH. I would like to ask the
gentleman a question because he repre¬
sents part of the district today that had
been assigned to me. Does this flood-
control measure in any way affect Dela¬
ware County which is now a part of my
district, formerly a part of the gentle¬
man’s district?
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. The
Susquehanna rises in Oswego County.
It comes down and flows through Che¬
nango County. It does not strike Dela¬
ware County at any appreciable point
except around the village of Sidney,
where some steps have been taken, I
think, with effect. The Delaware River
is the principal river in the county the
gentleman refers to. The Susquehanna
River is limited to mainly Otsego, Che¬
nango, and Broome Counties in New
York State and that area is affected more
than any other point. It is my sincere
hope that something will be done about it
right away for the sake of the people of
Johnson City, Endicott, Vestal, and that
vicinity.
The SPEAKER. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6V2
minutes to the gentleman from Michi¬
gan [Mr. Wolcott.]
Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, it seems
to me that we should proceed rather cau¬
tiously in respect to bills of this nature.
The thing which is disturbing the Amer¬
ican people and this Congress as much as
anything else is the effect of a possible
$300,000,000,000 debt on our post-war
economy. We are in no position today to
say whether we need $810,000,000 of con¬
struction for the purpose of taking up the
slack caused by unemployment or $80,-
000,000,000. This Congress should keep
itself in a position where it can legislate
for the post-war period when we reach
it. There is a formula to which many
subscribe that national income has a
certain relationship to the construction
of durable goods. It has been said that
the construction of durable goods is
about 16 percent of national income, and
if we maintain a national income of be¬
tween one hundred and twenty-five and
one hundred and thirty-five billion dol¬
lars, public works being a part of durable
goods construction, then we must gage
this post-war economy and our national
income upon the amount which we au¬
thorize for the durable-goods industries,
including public construction, no more,
understand, then is necessary to create
the base upon which our post-war econ¬
omy can build a structure to maintain a
national income sufficient to carry this
great burden.
I call your attention to the fact that
the passage of this bill will invite other
proposals similar to this. Wednesday
morning the Roads Committee meets in
executive session to determine the ad¬
visability of reporting an authorization
for $3,000,000,000 for construction of
roads and highways for our post-war
needs. The Roads Committee has
studied this for weeks and months, yet
we do not know what the needs in the
post-war world are going to be; so it is
1 rather embarrassing to have these bills
come in here at a time when the post-war
economic condition is as nebulous as it
is at the present time. These are more
or less commitments. If fhe project is
instituted, if the planning is done, if the
surveys are made, then, of course, we are
morally bound to appropriate the money
for the construction of them.
I want to call your attention also to the
fact that this bill provides not only for
flood control but provides that under the
authority of this act all of these au¬
thorizations may be used to develop
power projects. These authorizations
may be used also to construct, maintain,
and operate recreation facilities, con¬
servation facilities, and other facilities
which, of course, is so all-embracive, and
is not restrictive in any manner, that the
authorization in this bill could be used
for construction of anything which the
War Department determines to be a
facility. The only limitation upon these
facilities is that they must be advan¬
tageous to the interests of the United
States and we have absolutely nothing to
say in this bill as to whether they shall
be considered in the interest of the
United States or not.
We are expected to adopt this bill on
the premise also that it is necessary for
the national security. If these projects
are essential to the national security
then they should be constructed im¬
mediately and not after the war.
The bill goes on further to say that we
should construct these projects so that
we will have an adequate reservoir of
useful, worthy public works for the post¬
war construction program. We do not
know at the present time whether this
bill will be ample. We do not know any¬
thing about our post-war period. For
these reasons I come to you with the
thought that if you pass this bill, you
will have a $3,000,000,000 bill reported
out of a committee for the post-war con¬
struction of highways. You may expect
another bill providing billions for irri¬
gation and other projects. We must take
the responsibility because this country is
broke today and the people of this
country are looking for retrenchment in
nonessential expenditures.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman has expired.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. SabathI.
[Mr. SABATH addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
DEBT LIMIT BILL
Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that beginning on
Wednesday next it may be in order to
consider the bill (H. R. 4464) to increase
the debt limit of the United States; that
there shall be not to exceed 4 hours of
debate, to be confined to the bill, and
to be equally divided and controlled by
myself and the ranking minority mem¬
ber of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle¬
man from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
4202
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. STEPAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in th« Appendix of the Record
and include therein an article by Will
Kennedy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the -
Appendix.]
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RESERVOIRS,
LEVEES, AND WALLS FOR FLOOD
CONTROL
Mr. PISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Mc-
Lk.-^n] 3 minutes.
Mr. McLEAN. Mr. Speaker, when we
were considering the so-called simplifi¬
cation tax bill on last Thursday I pointed
out that personal income taxes for the
first 9 months of this fiscal year
amounted to upward of $12,000,000,000.
Of course, there will be a material in¬
crease in addition to that when the col¬
lections for the balance of the fiscal year
are added. I made the charge that the
pending bill was a revenue bill. Since
that time I have verified some of my
observations and am convinced more
than ever that the so-called simplifica¬
tion bill is a revenue bill. It will pro¬
vide new revenue from the personal in¬
come taxes upward of $2,000,000,000 as
against a loss claimed by its proponents
of $60,000,000.
By reducing the personal exemption
of approximately 20,000,000 taxpayers —
the figure Is official — by $200 each there
will be created additional taxable in¬
come of $4,000,000,000. Taxed at the
minimum rate of 20 percent surtax and
3 percent normal tax, this increased
taxable income will produce $920,000,-
000. The Treasury admits $300,000,000.
This item will be further increased by
the limitations placed on the use of this
exemption.
By increasing the surtax rates there
will result additional revenue of at least
$750,000,000.
These estimates are conservative: also,
they do not take into consideration any
income from those whose taxes will be
increased by reason of the reduction of
the personal exemption placing them in
the higher brackets, nor do they include
any surtax income from those of the
9,000,000 Victory taxpayers who have
never paid surtaxes before, but who will
now be included in that category.
These new rates and adjustments will
apply to income for the current calendar
year. The bill makes them retroactive to
January 1, 1944. The withholding fea¬
tures which the above manipulations are
intended to implement are not effective
until January 1, 1945. Hence all re¬
ceipts for 1944 will be velvet.
The claim is that increases in the sur¬
tax rates and reduction in personal ex¬
emptions are necessary incident to sim¬
plification to offset increases in depend¬
ents’ allowances of $290,000,000, losses by
reason of the integration of the Victory
tax of $240,000,000, and losses created by
the standard deduction allowance
amounting to $370,000,000. Accepting
the figures as correct and making ample
allowance, the new revenue under this
bill will exceed $2,000,000,000. Addition¬
al revenue will be realized from the po¬
tentialities of the devices created by the
bill.
This is in strong contrast with the
claim that the Treasury by reason of the
adoption of the bill in its present form
will suffer a loss of $60,000,000.
It is also significant to note the testi¬
mony of the Secretary of the Treasury
before the Committee on Ways and
Means when he was seeking $6,500,000,-
000 of additional i-evenue. He recom¬
mended the repeal of the Victory tax, the
lowering of the personal exemptions, in¬
creased rates, and the repeal of the
earned-income credit. The pattern at
that time, when the Secretary of the
Treasury was seeking an increase in
taxes of $6,500,000,000, is very similar to
that incorporated in the simplification
bill. In the first instance the plea was
for more revenue. Now, it is for simpli¬
fication without substantially changing
the number of taxpayers or the revenue
yield under existing law.
Mr. PISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Bishop] 3
minutes.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, the Mis¬
sissippi River Commission says that
with the great Mississippi River levee
system rapidly approaching completion,
the control of the meander of the river
has become the most urgent and difficult
problem confronting those responsible
for the safety of the valley and the main¬
tenance of free, easy, and unobstructed
navigation.
This, I am sure, you will find on page
13 of the report. It tells about the dis¬
trict which I represent at the present
time being under water.
It is estimated that a million and a
half acres of land are flooded by the Mis¬
sissippi and its brim-full tributaries, the
Illinois and Missouri Rivers.
From the Gorham, Jacob, and Minert
sections of southern Illinois over 1,100
people were moved without the loss of a
single life. When the levee broke around
Ware and Wolf Lake, the people were
evacuated without loss of life. Many
had already moved from their homes
and livestock had been transferred to
places of safety.
It is expected that farmers will be
afraid to plant another crop this year as
the lowlancss will probably flood again
later.
I bring to your attention that these
particular levees and dams were repaired
last year. This is the largest flood they
have had in that area in the past 100
years.
This piece of legislation is imperative
to these people who need and deserve
assistance.
I also want to take this opportimity
to bring to the attention of the Mem¬
bers of this House and the American
people the grand job being done by the
United States Coast Guard, the Federal
troops. State militia, and the civilian
volunteers. A word of commendation
should also go to the American Red Cross
and the Salvation Army for their fine
work.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
balance of the time on this side to the
gentleman from South Dakota [Mr,
Mundt].
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Speaker, while it is
ordinarily considered that a bill of this
type, on flood control, is a bill of ex¬
penditures, I think we can just as cor¬
rectly discuss this legislation as though
it were in fact a revenue bill, because
flood control is a means both of saving
expenditui'es to this Republic and, due to
the fact that so many multiple-purpose
dams are being built and provided, of
increasing the revenue which this coun¬
try can later collect in the form of taxes.
Before discussing this legislation any
further, however, I wish to pay my per¬
sonal respects to the splendid House
Committee on Flood Control. I have
frequently during the past 4 or 5 years
been before that committee as a wit¬
ness or sat in the committee room as
a “kibitzer” watching it function. I
know of no committee, although the
House of Representatives is blessed by
many hard-working, intelligent, and able
committees, which approaches its work
more systematically and painstakingly
than the Committee on Flood Control. I
know of no committee chairman who is
more sincere, more courageous, and bet¬
ter informed on the responsibilities pre¬
sented to his particular group than the
amiable but very determined gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. Whittington]. I
think this House can go far in accepting
the recommendations of a committee
and a committee chairman who habit¬
ually down through the years have ap¬
proached their work with this systematic
and statesmanlike attitude.
In discussing H. R. 4485, as a Repre¬
sentative from the First District of the
State of South Dakota, I am naturally
interested particularly in the project
which deals with the Missouri River,
which flows through my State all the way
from north to south. But as a Member
of the House of Representatives I am
equally interested in the other projects,
because this bill is of tremendous value
to the country as a whole.
I have spent some time studying not
only the specific proposals for the Mis¬
souri River, which begin on page 12 of
the bill, but the other proposals encom¬
passed in the entire omnibus flood-con¬
trol bill. It seems to me we should keep
clearly in mind that when we deal with
a flood-control measure of this kind we
are not simply orating about post-war
planning but are actually engaging in
specific and tangible post-war planning.
Here is something tangible, here is some¬
thing practicable, here is a post-war en¬
gineering program of river improvement
which, if authorized, as I hope it will be
in this legislation, will enable this coun¬
try to get busy immediately after the war
to take up the slack of unemployment
and to correct some of the serious evils
which have been plaguing this Republic
since the memory of man runneth not to
the contrary.
Mr. McGregor. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. McGREGOR. I am sure we all
have high regard for the gentleman’s
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
opinion. I wonder if he feels that the
provision on page 2, line 24, where au¬
thorization is given to the Chief of Engi¬
neers under the supervision of the Sec¬
retary of War to construct, maintain,
and operate recreation, conservation,
and other facilities, is a change from the
present law.
Mr. MUNDT. Yes; that is an amend¬
ment, and a very commendable one,
written into this legislation and showing
a growing tendency on the part of this
Government to give additional consid¬
eration to conservation. It is my hope
that the policy outlined in section 3 of
the bill which emphasizes the opportuni¬
ties for sound conservation developments
will hereafter be included in all river-
control legislation.
I want to say at this point that, unlike
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Wolcott] , who seems somewhat worried
about that provision, to me that is a very
commendable policy, because as we con¬
serve our natural resources, as we make
available new recreational areas, as we
learn to cooperate more intelligently with
Nature and her great resources, we con¬
tribute not only to the health and to the
happiness of this Republic but to its pros¬
perity and to its wealth as well.
In dealing with flood control we are
engaging in the challenging business of
taking a destructive force, which de¬
stroys wealth and kills people and
robs homes of their livelihood, and mak¬
ing it a constructive force. I know of
nothing which should appeal more to the
Members of this legislative body than
an opportunity to change destructive
forces into constructive powers. We do
that in harnessing floods and utilizing
the waters for constructive purposes.
I do not at all share the worry of the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wol¬
cott], that this is a dangerous piece of
legislation. It seems to me it is very wise
and economically sound post-war plan¬
ning. It is the type of legislation to
which this Congress should speedily de¬
vote itself not only in the field of water
utilization and flood control but in other
aspects of the great economic problem
confronting this country. I am happy
that this committee has brought before
us something we can actually do now
from the standpoint of meeting the post¬
war problems confronting this country.
I do agree with the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Wolcott], however, that
we are facing some terrifically challeng¬
ing financial problems after this war. I
want to pursue that problem a little
bit further. I would say to the gentle¬
man, How do you meet a financial prob¬
lem as a Government? You cannot re¬
pudiate your debts. We do not want to
meet them by inflation. Consequently,
we have to raise the tax money either by
increasing the tax schedules or by ex¬
panding the base of taxation. This legis¬
lation gives us an opportunity to extend
the base of taxation. It enables us to
meet this problem by broadening the
base of taxation so that present revenue
schedules will raise an increased amount
of money for the Federal Treasury.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman from South Dakota has
expired.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota.
Mr. MUNDT. Thank you, sincerely.
We have been advised by experts who
have examined all of this evidence that
the creation alone of the flood-control
and irrigation projects proposed along
the Missouri River, starting on page 12,
will add a forty-ninth State to the Union,
a forty-ninth State to help pay the taxes,
a forty-ninth State to help take up the
lag of employment, a forty-ninth State
to assume its share of the great burden
of debt which this country is going to
have after the war. That, if you please,
is wise economy. That, if you please, is
why I say this could be considered a rev¬
enue bill, because these multiple-purpose
dams not only eliminate the annual ex¬
penditures now caused in order to cor¬
rect the damages of floods, but they in
turn can be used with very little addi¬
tional expense to generate power with
which we can turn the wheels of indus¬
try.. They can be used to make naviga¬
tion available where navigation is feasi¬
ble and necessary. They can be used —
and I emphasize this because it is the
most important of all — to provide irriga¬
tion in a great section of the agricultural
Midwest which now has short crops in
some seasons and no crops in others be¬
cause of a lack of water. By using the
water held back from the floods to irri¬
gate these semiarid sections we are in
turn making an economic contribution to
this Republic by giving the farmers of
that area the crops, the livestock, and
the production necessary to assume their
proper burden of taxation.
So I commend to this body the adop¬
tion of this rule and the passage of this
legislation in the shape and the form
recommended by the members of the
Committee on Flood Control, who have
given it such careful and analytical
study.
In conclusion let me say a few words
about the section of H. R. 4485 dealing
with the Missouri River Basin. It is
found beginning on page 12. It pro¬
vides for the authorization of $200,000,-
000 for the initial construction on a plan
of improvement of the Missouri River
area for flood control, irrigation, power
development, navigation, and other pur¬
poses substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document No. 475,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.
It happens that I have been attending
meetings and discussing plans for flood
control and river improvement on the
Missouri River since 1929. Last sum¬
mer, in company with Gov. M. Q. Sharpe,
of South Dakota: Col Lewis A. Pick, of
the United States Army engineers;
Mr. W. G. Sloan, engineer with the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation; and others, I vis¬
ited all eight States of the Missouri River
area. From out of these years of study
and work and this series of meetings I
can tell you, ladies and gentlemen of the
House, that this program has the over¬
whelming support of the people of the
eight States comprising the Missouri
Valley area.
On the 1st of May the Bureau of Recla¬
mation made a report to Congress com-
4203
prising a comprehensive engineering
study of the water resources of this same
area. I have this report in my ofQce. I
have devoted many hours to its study and
to discussing its provisions with various
engineers, with many of my colleagues,
and with representatives of the Bureau
of Reclamation and the United States
Corps of Engineers. It gives me genuine
gratification to report that the points on
which the studies of the Bureau of Recla¬
mation and the United States Corps of
Army Engineers complement and rein¬
force each other are far and away in
excess of any points on which they are
in conflict. In fact, the differences are
so very minor that it is now apparent
that a coordinated program of water uti¬
lization and river improvement can be
developed between these two agencies
which will provide the optimum benefits
to the people living in this great Missouri
River Valley.
Both the officials of the War Depart¬
ment and of the Bureau of Reclamation
have shown a commendable willingness
to sit down together in order to reconcile
their studies and recommendations to
each other. The Army engineers . have
agreed to build the dams high enough to
impound water sufficient for irrigation
and where this is desirable only the limi¬
tation of engineering science and topog¬
raphy will hold down the size of the dams
for which a justifiable case can be con¬
structed on sound economic grounds in
connection with irrigation projects.
We in South Dakota are interested in
all of the multiple purposes for which
dams are built. We are interested in
flood control because portions of our rich
agricultural lands and some of our cities
have been damaged by inundation
through floods. In 1943 these floods on
the Missouri River, which I would have
you remember, is the longest river in the
United States, caused a direct damage of
$47,382,000. Indirect damages were even
higher so that a $100,000,000 flood loss
is a conservative figure to describe the
costs of floods to this Republic last year
along the Missouri River alone. This
year this area is once again being seri¬
ously flooded.
We in South Dakota are interested in
hydroelectric power. An abundance of
cheap power will help electrify our farms
and bring industries out to our State to
process the raw materials with which we
are so providentially blessed. We have
the world’s largest deposits of manga¬
nese in South Dakota. We have large
undeveloped coal fields. We have tim¬
ber. We have the richest gold mine in
the world. We raise vast quantities of
livestock and grains. For all of these
reasons the citizens of South Dakota are
vitally interested in the possibilities of
abundant hydroelectric power.
For the same reasons that we are in¬
terested in power, we are interested in
river navigation. Wherever river navi¬
gation is feasible and economically sound
it finds ready supporters in South Da¬
kota. Many of our products are of the
type known as heavy commodities and
anything which reduces transportation
charges adds to the income of our citi¬
zens as shippers and reduces the costs of
4204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE may 8
the heavy nonperishable supplies which
we purchase.
Finally, and most emphatically, South
Dakotans are interested in irrigation.
Growing out of the river-development
program outlined in House Document 475
and the May 1 report of the Bureau of
Reclamation there now beckons to us one
of the greatest and most profitable irri¬
gation opportunities in this country. A
proposed Irrigation project near Huron,
S. Dak., is one of the largest ever engi¬
neered by the Bureau of Reclamation. It
encompasses some of the richest soil in
this Republic. It envisages making avail¬
able a regulated and consistent supply of
moisture which will add greatly to the
farm products available to this country
and to the world. From the water im¬
pounded behind dams erected for flood
control can come the source supply need¬
ed to fill irrigation ditches and bring
moisture to hundreds of thousands of
parched acres.
Because of his interest in irrigation.
Governor Sharpe of South Dakota who
more than any other one man has spear¬
headed the crusade to inaugurate a
scientific program of river controls on the
Missouri River, suggested when he ap¬
peared before the Flood Control Com¬
mittee of the House on February 16 of
this year that language could be writ¬
ten into the flood-control bill which
would protect irrigation interests in the
upper portions of the river valley. I am
glad to report to the House that these
reservations are incorporated in H. R.
4485. I refer this House to the language
found on page 24 of the report and which
in turn appears on pages 12 and 13 of
the bill itself. I quote:
Provided, That nothing in this act shall
be construed as creating below Sioux City
any demand upon the water resources of the
Missouri River Basin above Sioux City in ex¬
cess of that now authorized by existing law ;
And provided further, That portions of the
storage authorized for the main stem of the
river shall be placed on tributaries if the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers
find such action advisable for silt control
and in order to make more water readily
available for agricultural and industrial use
without impairment of flood control below
Sioux City and without increasing the au¬
thorized limit of cost.
Mr. Speaker, H. R. 4485 has been care¬
fully designed to control floods and cur¬
tail their devastating ravages. It has
been designed with equal care to pro¬
vide for the constructive utilization of
the water which now rages madly down
the valley bringing death and destruc¬
tion in its wake. It deserves the sup¬
port of this House and the country. I
hope the rule bringing it before us for
action will be speedily adopted and that
the legislation, itself, can be made a part
of the laws of this land as a significant
step in prudent and productive post-war
planning.
[Mr. McKenzie addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan tMr. Shafer] may ex¬
tend his own remarks and include an ed¬
itorial.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RESERVATIONS
FOR RESERVOIRS. LEVEES. AND FLOOD
WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question on the reso¬
lution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the considera¬
tion of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing
the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control,
and for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consid¬
eration of the bill (H. R. 4485) author¬
izing the construction of certain public
works on rivers and harbors for flood
control and for other purposes, with Mr.
Bul WINKLE in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read¬
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
FLOOD CONTROL BILL
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 30 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, while national flood
control appropriations except in emer¬
gencies to protect war plants have been
discontinued for the duration, the losses
in lives and property in the floods of 1943
and in the existing floods of 1944 in the
midcontinental area have focused pub¬
lic attention not only upon the neces¬
sity of renewing flood control appropria¬
tions but upon the importance of ex¬
tending and enlarging flood control
authorizations.
EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS
The Committee on Flood Control con¬
ducted hearings during the month of
June 1943, and an emergency appropria¬
tion of $10,000,000 was authorized and
made for the repair, restoration, and
strengthening of levees and other flood
control works threatened or destroyed by
recent floods. These floods were wide¬
spread and the entire appropriation was
expended.
A major flood is now in progress along
the upper Mississippi River and its tribu¬
taries including the Missouri and the
‘ Illinois. The Chief of Engineers has vis¬
ited the flood-stricken area and is mak¬
ing an estimate of the loss and damages
and of the amounts required to repair
flood control works which were con¬
structed largely by the local interests so
that crops for 1944 may be protected.
The committee now plans to report
speedily a separate authorization for the
Immediate emergency repairs.
COMPREHENSIVE AUTHORIZATIONS
H. R. 4485 was unanimously reported
by the Committee on Flood Control after
exhaustive public hearings in June 1943
and in February 1944, for authorizations
in all of the principal river basins of the
United States for construction follow¬
ing the war. A comprehensive report ac¬
companies the bill, and the hearings in
two volumes are available to Congress
and the country.
FLOODS
Floods have harassed man in all ages
and in all countries in both war and
peace. The Chinese found it necessary
to control the floods along the great
rivers of the Celestial Empire, from the
earliest times. The records of floods in
China extend, over a period of 4,000
years. The levees along Chinese rivers
were first constructed while Europe was
still a wilderness. Some of China’s
greatest legendary heroes are her engi¬
neers. One of them is Li Ping. A beau¬
tiful temple has been erected to his mem¬
ory. There is inscribed in letters of gold
at the entrance of the temple his com¬
mand: “Dig the bed deep and keep the
banks low.”
The Egyptians constructed dikes and
reservoirs in the early dawn of history.
Menes was the first king of the first dy¬
nasty. Some authorities place his reign
about 4,000 years before Christ. Others
place it 5,000 years before the Christian
era. His flood-control project, accord¬
ing to the Greek historian Herodotus,
appears to be the first undertaking of
its kind on record. Levees were con¬
structed to protect the ancient city of
Memphis. Dams were built to provide
water for the arid lands. Lake Moeris,
a huge reservoir constructed by the
Pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty, was ac¬
counted one of the seven wonders of the
world.
Pour thousand years ago the Egyp¬
tians built a canal 100 miles long to con¬
nect the waters of the Nile and the Red
Sea. Canals were constructed in other
countries in ancient times. The 1,200-
mile Grand Canal of China, begun 2,500
years ago, is still the world’s longest
canal.
While ancient Egypt was struggling to
regulate the waters of the Nile, Babylon
controlled the waters of the Tigris and
Euphrates. Elaborate canals and ditches
were built to supplement the works of
nature by Babylon 4,500 years before
Christ.
The Romans maintained the ancient
Egyptian flood-control and river works
so efficiently after Egypt came under
the dominion of Rome, that Egypt was
the chief granery and one of the richest
provinces of the Roman Empire. The
structures built by the Egyptians are the
oldest in history. The Great Pyramids,
marvels of engineering, were constructed
5,000 years ago. “All things fear time,
but time fears the Pyramids.”
The longer one lives, the more one is
impressed by the close connection be¬
tween ancient and modern times. In
both the ancient and modern worlds, en¬
gineers have played a chief part In all
civilizations. When we think of flood
control, we think of great engineers and
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
great public works. Engineers made
marvelous contributions to the civiliza¬
tions of antiquity. They have left their
monuments in systems of canals in the
Tigris and Euphrates Valleys in great
reservoirs like the Payum in the upper
Nile, in the Pyramids of ancient Egypt,
in the Great Walls of China, and in
aqueducts and highways of the Roman
Empire. Herodotus tells us of the great
works of the architect Rhoecus of Sa¬
mos as he speaks of his marvelous res¬
ervoir works and of the great temple of
Herah. An aqueduct was constructed
by King Hezekiah to supply the city
of Jerusalem long before Chi’ist.
As civilization in all countries ad¬
vanced, man attempted to improve and
control rivers. Sometimes he undertook
to control the ravages of disastrous floods
by keeping the high waters within the
banks and between the levees supple¬
menting the banks. Again he utilized
diversions and constructed floodways.
At other times he stored the excess wa¬
ters in rainy seasons for use in time of
scarcity. Dams were constructed to de¬
tain the flood waters to prevent the over¬
flow of the valleys.
Floods are not more frequent than
formerly. There were floods long be¬
fore De Soto discovered the Mississippi
and long before the Ohio Valley was set¬
tled. Deforestation has little to do with
the frequency of floods. Soil erosion has
been going on through the ages; it is re¬
sponsible for the alluvial valleys of the
United States. There is ho thing new
about dust storms. They have occurred
in the United States and other countries
for centuries, but man’s mistreatment of
the soil has multiplied both soil erosion
and dust storms.
Rivers are among Nature’s best con¬
tributions to the progress of man. But
man must supplement nature. Impedi¬
ments to navigation must be removed.
Canals must be constructed, channels
must be deepened, harbors must be kept
open, and barriers must be removed.
Transportation by water is the cheapest
form of transportation, and the denser
the population the greater the need for
cheap transportation.
Rivers have always contributed to the
advancement of mankind. The lack of
navigable rivers has hindered the de¬
velopment of many countries. Cities in
ancient and modern times located along
the great rivers have grown and pros¬
pered. What would London be without
the Thames? What would New York be
without the Hudson? What would St.
Louis be without the Mississippi? While
rivers are among nature’s greatest con¬
tributions, they must be improved, they
must be controlled.
I know of no history that does not deal
much with rivers. I know of no legend
or fable that does not include rivers.
There is a charm and majesty about
rivers. As the ocean awes with its re¬
sistless power, so the river thrills and
delights. The river is the most human
and most companionable of all inani¬
mate objects; it has a voice of its own; it
is full of good fellowship and of delight¬
ful companionship. It can be friendly
and helpful or it can be threatening and
destructive; it can be gay or it can be
grave.
A drop of water could tell a wonderful
story. It has made the long journey
from the river to the ocean millions and
millions of times. It has been lifted by
the blazing sun from the sea or gulf,
carried by the wind and storm across the
plains, the hills, the valleys, and the
mountains to fall as rain or snow and to
join other billions of drops of water to
form the little brook that ultimately
finds its way into the great river that
flows ever onward to the sea.
METHODS TESTED AND APPROVED
The history of floods in the United
States and other countries is well known.
They are not more frequent, as I have
stated, but because of the advance in
civilization, the destruction is greater.
The forces of nature have been constant
through the centuries. The time for
argument and disputation with respect
to the methods of solving flood problems
has passed. Man cannot prevent floods
but he can control them. He cannot pre¬
vent nor can he change the amount of
rainfall, but he ^ can alter the rate at
which it will run off. He cannot pre¬
vent, nor can he change the amount of
snowfall, but he can delay the snow by
dense foliage and by other means from
reaching the ground, and he can hinder
the snow when it has reached the ground
from being converted into rapid run-off.
He can check the ravages of disastrous
floods by keeping high waters within the
banks and between levees supplementing
the banks. He can hold back the rains
and the snows by dams along the trib¬
utaries of the headwaters. He can de¬
tain the floods by larger dams below the
headwaters. He can supplement the
levees by diversion and floodways. He
can straighten the channels and thus
hasten the discharge.
The United States leads the world in
engineering structures. Fort Peck,
Grand Coulee, and Boulder Dams will
each impound larger volumes of water
than the far-famed Assuan Dam in the
upper stretches of the Nile. The Pan¬
ama Canal is the greatest artificial
waterway ever built by the hand of man.
The levees along the lower Mississippi
River have required more than three
times the excavation of the Panama
Canal and they are the most massive
structures in the history of mankind.
Unparalleled progress in flood control has
been made in the United States. The
improvements began along the lower
Mississippi River. More progress in the
control of floods has been made in the
United States in the past 15 years than
in the preceding 150 years, and probably
more progress has been made in flood
control in the past 15 years than in the
preceding 1,500 years. We now know
that floods cannot be prevented, but we
know they can be controlled. The works
along the lower Mississippi River were
primarily in aid of navigation until the
great flood of 1927.
The Flood Control Act of 1928 first
proclaimed that flood control was a na¬
tional problem. A national policy for
flood control was first adopted in 1936.
4205
The policy and the program initiated by
the act of 1936 have been extended by
subsequent acts of Congress, including
the acts of 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1941.
The country and the Congress are in
agreement that the planning and execu¬
tion of flood-control projects should be a
function of the Corps of Engineers of the
United States Army and that the investi¬
gations of watersheds and measures for
run-off and water-flow retardation and
soil-erosion prevention should be prose¬
cuted by the Department of Agriculture.
Prior to the act of 1936 flood control
had obtained only along the lower Missis¬
sippi River and along the Sacramento
River primarily in aid of navigation.
The bill now under consideration re¬
affirms the policy proclaimed in the act
of 1936. The bill constitutes legislative
planning for post-war construction. It
introduces certain modifications in the
policy of national flood control, especially
with respect to administrative procedure
which will aid in carrying out the na¬
tional flood-control program.
The works along the lower Mississippi
River were tested in 1937, and the floods
of 1943 and 1944 in the lower Mississippi
Valley prove that Old Man River has
been bridled and harnessed. Tire local
protective works along the Ohio River
were tested as they withstood the floods
in the fall and winter of 1942. All fac¬
tors of safety have been utilized. Levees,
flood walls, reservoirs, cut-offs, spillways,
channel improvements, and diversions
have been authorized and constructed.
The methods have been tested. The
policy is sound. There is a reason for
the success of the program. ‘All plan¬
ning and all construction are under the
supervision of the Corps of Engineers of
the United JStates Army, who are the out¬
standing flood-control engineers of this
or any other country and of this or any
other age. Since 1936 substantially $1,-
009,000,000 for national flood control for
projects outside the lower Mississippi
Valley has been authorized. Works have
been approved in all the principal drain¬
age basins of the United States. The
Flood Control Acts of 1936, 1937, 1938,
and 1941 approved works at an estimated
cost of some $2,500,000,000, but only par¬
tial authorizations for less than $1,000,-
000,000 for the initiation and construc¬
tion of the more important works were
made. Congress has manifested fore¬
sight. The additional authorizations ag¬
gregating $810,000,000 in the pending
bill will provide for construction of flood-
control works in all the river basins of
the United States.
ENGINEERS AND RIVERS
In time of war engineers have always
constructed the weapons of destruction.
They build the tanks, the airplanes, the
battleships, and the structures essen¬
tial for the advance of the armies. No
profession has contributed more to the
progress of mankind than the engineers.
Rivers have served man in the past.
They have molded peoples, and they
have contributed to progress. In the
future, as in the past, rivers will make
nations great.
Rivers interest me. They fascinate
me. They have always influenced the
No. 81-
5
4206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
course of civilization. They have a char¬
acter all their own. They flow through
the years and through the lands, and
they flow across civilization. They make
history. They bring life, and they bring
destruction. They are the friends or
they may be the enemies of man. Man
himself makes the final choice.
Rivers are just as important in peace
as in war. The great Russian and Ger¬
man battles have been fought over the
Don, the Donets, and the Dnieper Riv¬
ers. The most famous campaigns of
Gen. Ulysses S. Grant were along the
Tennessee and the Mississippi Rivers.
Rivers influence the course of war, but
they influence the course of peace no
less than war.
There are small rivers that are just
as important as large rivers. There are
small men who are just as great as large
men. Important rivers, like important
men, are not always large in size. Many
of the most important rivers in the
world are comparatively small, while
the names of others much larger are
seldom heard.
Of all rivers, the Mississippi is the most
marvelous. Below the Missouri its wa¬
ters are muddy. South of Cairo it flows
into the Gulf of Mexico through the al¬
luvial valley. The valley averages from
20 to 80 miles in width. Above the
mouth of the Missouri its waters are
green. There are beautiful palisades
and wonderful limestone cliffs that tower
far above the green waters. In the upper
stretches the Falls of St. Anthony are
not only beautiful but they are re¬
nowned in song and story. The Indians
spoke of the Mississippi as the “Big
River.” When we think of the Missis¬
sippi River, we think of power and of
glory. It is not only the longest but it is
the greatest navigable river in all the
world. It loses none of its interest and
its fascination as it travels toward the
sea.
The accomplishments of the United
States Corps of Engineers have been
characterized by initiative and courage.
Experiments as well as studies have been
utilized. The cut-offs that have short¬
ened the lower Mississippi River between
Helena and Baton Rouge substantially
138 miles, tested as they have been by
actual floods, are among the monu¬
mental engineering achievements of the
world.
NOT FINAL NOR ST.ATIC
Flood control, like science, knows no
finality. The adopted projects are flex¬
ible and can be expanded. All works, as
authorized, will be utilized in the pro¬
gram of expansion. Flood control is
neither final nor static. As new prob¬
lems arise, new solutions will be found.
FLOOD CONTROL AND CONSERVATION NOT
SYNONYMOUS
Power advocates and conservationists
often foster projects under the guise of
flood control. Water is the most valu¬
able of our natural resources. It should
be utilized for the benefit of man. It
should not be wasted nor polluted.
There is a place for soil conservation.
There is a place for reforestation. Power
must be developed. However, soil con¬
servation and reforestation supplement
but do not supplant flood-control works.
Water uses and water conservation
should be provided, where feasible, in the
construction of dams. Power should be
developed wherever practicable in the
building of dams, but the public should
be advised whether the works are pri¬
marily for power or primarily for flood
control. They should be informed that
there is a difference between flood con¬
trol, and soil conservation, and reforesta¬
tion. They know that floods obtained in
the United States before the white man
cut a tree or plowed a furrow. They
know that a full reservoir is essential for
the development of power, but they also
know that an empty reservoir is essen¬
tial for the storage of floodwaters.
There is a place, however, for the mul¬
tiple-purpose reservoir. Provision wher¬
ever practicable and economical can be
made in the first instance for the stor¬
age of water for the development of
power, but additional provision where re¬
quired should be made for floods. All
existing flood-control acts provide that
penstocks in reservoirs shall be installed
by the engineers where there are proba¬
bilities that power may be developed.
The methods of flood control contem¬
plate that floodwaters shall serve and
not destroy man.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Pardon me, in
just a few minutes.
POST-WAR PLANNING
Mr. Chairman, we hear a great deal
about post-war planning. We heard
much of planning during the great de¬
pression that followed the crash of 1929.
Much of the proposed planning is too
theoretical. It is impractical. Too many
professional planners cover too much ter¬
ritory, so to speak. They embrace too
many activities, with the result that
there is no definite information for legis¬
lation for specific improvements that are
urgently demanded and that are entirely
practical. Many of the so-called related
activities are only remotely connected
with the important activities. Confu¬
sion results. There is delay. Only tried
and tested methods should be used. The
jurisdiction of the Federal agencies for
both planning and construction of the
works has been definitely settled. Con¬
gress and the country are agreed that
both the planning and execution of flood-
control projects should be under the ju¬
risdiction of the Corps of Engineers of
the United States Army.
PUBLIC WORKS
Total war must be followed by total
peace. Of course, the immediate task is
to win the war, but when the war is won,
when war production stops, and when
our armed forces are demobilized, serious
unemployment problems will arise.
Wishful thinking is not sound planning.
Careful study, more careful planning,
and immediate preparation are essential.
Prompt action now is imperative to pro¬
vide for economic conditions then.
PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION
There is a place for private as well as
public construction. There is a definite
field for each. Private construction in¬
cludes housing, utilities, railways, and
industrial construction. Private con¬
struction, like public construction, has
been curtailed during the war. There
will be an accumulated demand in the
post-war period.
There are local public works that
should be promoted and financed by the
city, by the county, and by the State.
Local sanitation, hospitals, and addi¬
tional school structures will be needed in
the post-war program. Victory is our
chief objective, but true patriotism tran¬
scends war. Public works will be re¬
quired following the war. There must be
adequate planning now not only for peace
following the war but for employment
following the war. Otherwise the objec¬
tives of our armed forces will have been
in vain. There is no place for the dole or
work-relief program. They would only
add to the economic ills following war.
Public works contemplate long-range
planning. They should be provided now
for construction then. They must be
fully planned if they are to be federally
financed.
Many projects have been proposed un¬
der the guise of public works, but every
proposal should be studied and tested.
They should meet the requirements of
sound public works. First, the project
should have practical utility. Second,
it should be economically sound. Third,
it should be of the type that cannot com¬
pete with any facilities that can be pro¬
vided through private enterprise. Fed¬
eral public works should not conflict with
private works and local public works.
Flood-control projects constructed in
one State often benefit another State.
Flood-control works are national in
scope. They meet the Federal test. I
know of no more satisfactory public
works than flood-control improvements.
STUDIES
All of the principal rivers of the United
States have been studied or surveyed by
the Corps of Engineers of the United
States Army. Reports have been sub¬
mitted to Congress. Levees, flood walls,
and reservoirs have been constructed.
Local protective works along the Con¬
necticut and reservoirs along the tribu¬
taries of the Connecticut have been con¬
structed in New England. Authorized
flood-control works have been con¬
structed by the Corps of Engineers from
Hartford, Conn., to Los Angeles, Calif.,
and from Seattle, Wash., to Jacksonville,
Fla.
BACKLOG
We recall the depression following
World War No. 1. We are apprehensive
of another debacle following the present
war. It is difficult to arm. It is more
difficult to disarm. Post-war unemploy¬
ment will be a major national problem.
While we are defending our freedom and
our way of life, we must not fail to take
stock of the problem of unemployment
v.'hich we must face when the war is
over.
We must profit by the experience of
1920. We must profit by the experience
of 1930. A reservoir of projects must be
adopted. Backlogs should be provided
and they should be real backlogs. Many
wasteful and extravagant activities to
provide employment were adopted in
1933. Haste and speed were imperative.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
There was hunger in the land. Unem¬
ployment was widespread. There must
be no repetition of waste and extrava¬
gance. There are Federal activities and
there are public works that will promote
the general welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 10 additional minutes.
The bill under consideration provides
flood-control authorizations to increase,
the backlog of sound projects and to en¬
large the reservoir of useful public works
following the war. After all, the real
problems of war never come until the
war is over. Peace is really more difficult
than war.
APPROVAL BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The system for studying and investi¬
gating flood-control projects is most ef-
flcient. The Chief of Engineers has the
final say. Under his supervision is the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har¬
bors in Washington. In the field there
is the division engineer. Under his su¬
pervision is the district engineer. All
problems and projects are carefully
studied and surveyed by the district en¬
gineer in the field. Their reports are re¬
viewed by the division engineer. The re¬
ports and recommendations of the divi¬
sion engineers are reviewed by the Board
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and
finally before submission to Congress,
the reports are examined and either ap¬
proved or disapproved by the Chief of
Engineers. The Corps of Engineers rep¬
resents the country and the Public Treas¬
ury. The pending bill contains no
projects that has not been favorably con¬
sidered by the Corps of Engineers and
recommended by the Chief of Engineers.
DOMINANT INTERESTS
The Committee on Flood Control has
adhered to the policy of reporting bills
and reporting projects where the dom¬
inant interest is flood control. It often
appears that navigation, irrigation, or
' power is involved. Provision is made for
their development. Differences of opin¬
ion in executive departments as to the
dominant interests respecting a few of
the projects included in the bill exist.
All interests were heard, and only those
projects where the preponderance of the
testimony showed that flood control was
paramount are contained in the pending
bill.
The Flood Control Act of August 18,
1941, contained all of the projects ap¬
proved by the committee on which favor¬
able reports had been submitted by the
Chief of Engineers. Since the act of
1941, a number of reports on surveys au¬
thorized by Congress have been com¬
pleted and reviewed by the Board of En¬
gineers for Rivers and Harbors, and re¬
ports on flood-control projects with
favorable recommendations have been
submitted to Congress. The bill provides
for additional authorizations for the
prosecution of approved comprehensive
plans, and it authorizes a number of in¬
dividual projects which have been found
economically feasible and desirable. It
continues the procedure of authorizing
additional surveys and examinations for
flood control and finally authorizes the
sum of $810,000,000 to be appropriated
for post-war construction.
RESERVOIRS
Flood control is a national problem,
and while local works are required in
many cases, local works are not effective
in other cases. In the case of reservoirs,
it is most difficult to determine and to
distribute among local interests the costs
of construction. Moreover, reservoirs in
one State detain waters that flood an¬
other State. Floods know no State lines.
Reservoirs were authorized under the act
of 1936, but they were not constructed
except in some parts of the far West
where there were no valleys and where
the areas were largely canyon and with¬
out much value. Reservoirs were au¬
thorized along the tributaries of the
Ohio, but they were not constructed be¬
cause in many cases they did not benefit
or protect from floods the areas in the
States where they were located below the
dams. The protection extended to other
States. In some cases navigation was in¬
volved.
The country insisted that levees and
flood walls alone would not do the job.
Engineers maintained that the waters
must be detained at the source and that
reservoirs only would be effectitve. I re¬
peat to emphasize that experience
demonstrated that such reservoirs can
only be constructed throughout the
country upon the Federal Government’s
assuming the costs of easements and
construction. The principle of local con¬
tribution otherwise obtains. Along all
rivers the local interests are required to
furnish the rights-of-way for levees and
flood walls and to maintain the projects
after completion. If the policy of the
Government paying the costs of the
rights-of-way for levees were abandoned,
flood control would be irretrievably set
back.
Again, under the guise of States’ rights
but in reality voicing the policy of the
Power Trusts, there are those who object
and oppose the construction of reser¬
voirs for flood control where those reser¬
voirs contain power possibilities. The
opposition is without merit. Water is our
most valuable resource. If floodwaters
can be detained and if provision could
be made economically for the develop¬
ment of power for the benefit of all the
people in the area where they are located,
a Federal policy that prevented the de¬
velopment of such power would be short¬
sighted. It would not be in the public
or the national interest. It is passing
strange that those who oppose the Fed¬
eral Government’s developing power and
disposing of it to the people in the area
where produced, giving to public institu¬
tions the refusal of the power with pro¬
vision for compensating from the pro¬
ceeds of power sold, the State and local
jurisdictions for taxes that might other¬
wise be levied against private interests
advocate construction by the power in¬
terests. At the same time those who op¬
pose the Government’s developing and
disposing of power so produced advocate
reservoirs for the generation of power by
private institutions. I know of no more
effective prevention of monopolistic
power rates than Federal projects that
we have as a yardstick where they are
4207
justified in the river basins of the United
States.
We have heard a great deal about
reservoirs. We have heard about reser¬
voirs being authorized and constructed
in one State and we have heard that the
beautiful valleys and farms in certain
other States have been destroyed. It is
time for a little careful thinking. Con¬
gress authorized a number of reservoirs
in the upper Ohio in 1936, and it au¬
thorized reservoirs in every part of the
United States to supplement the levees
the diversions, and the floodways but ex¬
cept in the far West where the rights-of-
way and the easements had no values in
canyon countries, there were no reser¬
voirs for flood control constructed until
in 1938 when the construction of reser¬
voirs was authorized at Federal expense.
There is a reason for that. It is diffi¬
cult to apportion among the citizens
along the Ohio River the benefits that
will accrue to them by the construction
of reservoirs along the tributaries of the
Allegheny and the Monongahela, but
they are in the interest of the national
welfare. It is difficult to ascertain and
by State compact or otherwise distribute
in all fairness among the cities and the
communities of the lower Connecticut
River the benefits that will accrue from
the construction of reservoirs in New
Hampshire and in Vermont, yet I have
heard some friends say, and they almost
shed crocodile tears as they say it. that
reservoirs will destroy the beautiful val¬
leys in the magnificent Green Mountains
and White Mountains,
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ob¬
ject to that because we have not shed
any crocodile tears.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I may say in
all fairness, and I respect the gentle¬
man’s opinion, that in those States there
can be no projects for the development
of power by utility companies that do
not destroy the valleys in the same way.
If we are going to shed tears — and I
gladly withdraw the term “crocodile”
because I have too high a regard for the
gentleman and I would not hurt the gen¬
tleman’s feelings for anything in the
world — if we are concerned, so vitally
concerned, with respect to reservoirs and
flood control, we mfight equally be con¬
cerned when those same valleys and the
same areas are destroyed by projects that
develop power where high dams are es¬
sential for the development of that
power, by utility companies.
Mr. Chairman, it must be kept in mind
that while the Federal Government un¬
derwrites the cost of easements and
rights-of-way and of reservoirs and all
projects in all river basins throughout
the United States, the Federal Govern¬
ment requires the local interest to pro¬
vide for the rights-of-way for local levees
and local protective works. That rule is
universal and that yardstick obtains in
all parts of the country. I know of no
more effective prevention where flood
control can be provided by reservoirs
soundly and adequately, and personally
I know of no reason why, if there can be
developed at those reservoirs power for
the benefit of the people in the area
where reservoirs are located to give them
a yardstick in order to ascertain if the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
4208
power companies and the utilities are
charging them a fair price, we should not
provide for this development. Moreover,
if down in Alabama and Tennessee the
T. V. A. can pay to those States a part
of the income from T. V. A. to supple¬
ment the loss of taxes if those projects
were under private development, I know
of no reason why that cannot be done
elsewhere.
FLOOD CONTROL AND RECLAMATION
It is a source of satisfaction to me that
there has always been cooperation be¬
tween the advocates of flood control,
rivers and harbors, and reclamation.
The utilization of our natural resources
has been promoted by all. Unfortu¬
nately there is rivalry not only among
groups but in governmental departments.
There is room enough in this broad land
of ours for all activities to utilize water
for the progress of man. There is no
real occasion for rivalry or conflict.
Those who promote discord and those
who undertake to drive a wedge between
the advocates of flood control and recla¬
mation are rendering both interests a
distinct disservice.
Much is said about the appropriation
of waters and about rights of States to
the uses of water. The Committee on
Flood Control has been most careful to
recommend no project and to include no
provision in the pending bill that would
In any way retard reclamation. As I
have indicated, no project has been re¬
ported unless the dominant interest is
flood control. The committee went out
of its way. It invited the Commissioner
of Reclamation to appear before the com¬
mittee. It invited those who shared his
views and his fears to submit their argu¬
ment to the committee. Careful con¬
sideration was given to the views of all.
The States have no power of appropria¬
tion or power of use that is not accorded
to them under the Constitution. While
the State control of waters is subordi¬
nate to the jurisdiction of the United
States under the Constitution, as de¬
cided in the case of United States v. Rio
Grande Dam and Irrigation Co. (174
U. S. 690), United States v. Appalach¬
ian Power Co. — the New River case —
(311 U. S. 377), and Oklahoma v. At¬
kinson — the Red River case — (313 U. S.
556), and while the param^ount right un¬
der the commerce clause of the Consti¬
tution is in the Federal Government, in
every way even to the extent of stretch¬
ing the Constitution, the Federal Gov¬
ernment has cooperated with the arid
States and has promoted and aided recla¬
mation. The Committee on Flood Con¬
trol gave most careful consideration to
the recommendations of the Commis¬
sioner of Reclamation as to legislative
provisions. Section 6 is included in the
bill to protect and to promote reclama¬
tion. There is no occasion for quibbling.
Reclamation projects constructed will be
under the control and supervision of the
Secretary of the Interior.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield myself
10 additional minutes in order to answer
any questions that may be asked.
The Committee on Flood Control Is not
unaware of the fact that some friends of
reclamation were disturbed about the
Missouri River Basin project contained in
the bill. All reasonable safeguards to
show that it is the intent and purpose
of the authorization to recognize exist¬
ing rights are contained in the bill. In
fact, the committee has leaned over back¬
ward in an effort to cooperate with the
Bureau of Reclamation. With repeated
floods, especially from Sioux City to St.
Louis, there can be no question but what
the dominant interest along the Missouri
River Basin is flood control.
I repeat to emphasize that reservoirs
along the main stem of the river above
Sioux City will not provide for any wa¬
ters except waters that empty into the
main river from the tributaries, and I
repeat also to emphasize that there is
nothing in the bill to prevent the water
on the tributaries from being utilized for
the development of the arid lands before
and after it maches the main stem of the
Missouri Ri^. The people who suffer
from devastating floods will be more than
pleased if the waters are not only utilized
but detained at their source.
The Kings River and Kern River proj¬
ects in the bill were recommended by the
Chief of Engineers. His reports were
submitted as required by acts of Con¬
gress. The Bureau of Reclamation also
investigated and reported on these riv¬
ers. The testimony discloses that the
Bureau is anxious to be authorized to
construct the works along these rivers.
Fundamentally the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion is concerned with the development
of public lands. Along Kings and Kern
Rivers there is no public lands. There
are no Federal reclamation projects.
The people in these valleys have con¬
structed and operated their own recla¬
mation projects and they oppose the su¬
pervision of their projects by the Bureau
of Reclamation or by any other Federal
agency. I commend the people of the
valley for providing for their own needs
to cultivate their lands rather than com¬
ing to Congress to do for them what they
can better do for themselves. The com¬
mittee held repeated hearings. With one
accord, the citizens of both valleys advo¬
cated the project as recommended by the
Chief of Engineers in preference to the
project as recommended by the Bureau
of Reclamation. The committee felt that
flood control was dominant and provision
is made not only for flood control but for
proper development of power that can be
utilized in the area in which it is gen¬
erated.
The proposed projects will in nowise
interfere with the operation of the so-
called Central Valley Authority. Any
works along these valleys or in the Sac¬
ramento Valley supplement the proposed
works in the Central Valley. The people
are entitled to a voice in the Federal
agency under which they work and live.
The Committee on Flood Control fol¬
lowed not only the engineering recom¬
mendations of both the Chief of Engi¬
neers and the Bureau of Reclamation
but gave consideration to the views of
the citizens of these two splendid valleys
who throughout the years have made
large expenditures to protect their lives
and property from floods and have con¬
structed their own irrigation and recla¬
mation works without Federal contri¬
bution or supervision.
NO CONFLICT
The validity of the Central Valley Au¬
thority of the Bonneville Dam, of the
Grand Coulee Dam, and of the Fort Peck
Dam rests upon the commerce clause of
the Constitution. All of these projects
were Anally authorized in river and har¬
bor legislation. The Grand Coulee and
the Central Valley Authority are being
constructed by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion, but they were authorized in river
and harbor bills under the commerce
clause of the Constitution.
There is no real conflict between navi¬
gation, flood control, and irrigation. The
Supreme Court in the Arizona case (295
U. S. 174), held that Congress could au¬
thorize a dam across the Colorado River
without regard to the jurisdiction of an
adjoining State in respect of the appro¬
priation, use, and distribution of its
equitable share of water. While naviga¬
tion is paramount, reclamation uses are
important.
There is no occasion for the West to be
apprehemsive. I favor the utilization of
waters within the States for domestic
uses and for irrigation. I want to pro¬
tect the citizens of other parts of the
country in their riparian privileges and
in the enjoyment of their ripari; n rights.
All such rights whether in the West or
elsewhere along the navigable rivers are
subordinate to improvements in the dis¬
cretion of Congress for flood control and
navigation. The rights of the West are
safeguarded in the bill. The Western
States are protected in the continued
utilization of the water resources under
existing law. No existing law whether
State or Federal is valid unless it is con¬
stitutional. Quibbling, misinterpreting,
or misrepresenting with respect to exist¬
ing legislation, whether State or Federal,
can only hurt the cause or reclamation.
Flood-control projects in the West have
been constructed along the Sacramento
River and other streams for years. No
conflict with respect to the domestic use
of water, or the use of water for irriga¬
tion has arisen.
ANALYSIS BY SECTIONS
There is a careful analysis of the bill
by sections in the comprehensive report
submitted by the committee. The mem¬
bership of the House would do well to
read the complete report. Each project
is described and justified. No project is
included unless the benefits exceed the
costs under findings of the Chief of Engi¬
neers.
If a man is to produce in factories
along the rivers and if man is to cultivate
the fertile valleys, his life and property
must be protected. Citizens cannot live
in peace or contribute to the national
welfare unless they are secure in life and
property. Agriculture cannot succeed
and industry cannot afford to venture
where overflows occur periodically with¬
out security.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
4209
I should like to make a brief analysis
of the bill at this point.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. The distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whit¬
tington] has made a very interesting
statement on this very pressing and im¬
portant subject. I think the gentleman
stated that in the last 15 years we have
made greater progress in flood control
programs than we made in the last 150
years of our history. I believe that was
the gentleman’s statement.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is my
view, yes; whether I be right or wrong.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I want to say to
the Members of the House and to the
country that the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi is too modest to tell us the part
he has played in this remarkable pro¬
gram. The gentleman from Mississippi,
the chairman of the Committee on Flood
Control, has been responsible for this
farsighted, comprehensive program that
has saved our country millions of dol¬
lars from flood disasters. For 4 years
I had the privilege of working with
the distinguished chairman of this com¬
mittee and have personal knowledge of
his industry, clear thinking, and deep
insight into the problems of flood con¬
trol. I remember the time, Mr. Chair¬
man, when he and a few others started
to advocate the idea that the important
thing to do in the control of floods was
to build reservoirs and impound the
waters at their sources. He was a leader
and pioneer in that line of thought, and
today we are beginning to see the benefi¬
cial effects of a workable, national, and
comprehensive flood-control program.
The country owes you, sir, a great debt
of gratitude.
I desire also to commend the gentle¬
man’s committee not only for the hard
work they have done on this bill but for
the great program they have offered the
country now and in the years to come.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE. I think that the Members
of the House generally share the senti¬
ments expressed by the gentleman from
Missouri.
I would like to ask the gentleman a
question with respect to the power that
may be authorized under this bill. Some
time ago the gentleman made a speech
in which he said that flood-control bills
did not authorize the installation of gen¬
erators or generating equipment but that
penstocks might be included in an au¬
thorization or in the construction of a
project if recommended by the Federal
Power Commission. Is there any change
in that situation or is there any change
proposed by this bill? In other words,
will it require separate legislation before
any power generators can be installed
in any construction proposed to be au¬
thorized?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentle¬
man’s question is very pertinent. The
answer is, “No.” Soundly, when a proj¬
ect, a reservoir, or a dam is built for flood
control, if it appears that there are pos¬
sibilities for the development of power
the flood control acts, beginning with
1938, have required that a penstock be
installed if recommended by the Federal
Power Commission and by the Chief of
Engineers, but no provision is made for
the installation of facilities for the gen¬
eration of power, in the flood control
bills.
I should like to say in this connection
that with respect to the dam in south¬
ern Vermont mentioned by the distin¬
guished gentleman from New York [Mr.
Fish] that dam is authorized under ex¬
isting legislation. It is my view that
there is no provision for the development
of a power dam there, that it would in¬
crease the price of the original author¬
ization two or three times, until Con¬
gress authorized it. I will say that Con¬
gress has not authorized the dam for
the development of power. As pointed
out by the gentleman from Massa¬
chusetts [Mr. Clason], this bill specifi¬
cally states that at this point in Vermont
the dam shall be only for flood control.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has again
expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mi . Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHI'IT'INGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I join my col¬
leagues in the tribute that has been paid
to our distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Flood Control on the work
he has done and the interest he has
taken in this legislation.
The program that has just been dis- i
cussed has to do with post-war plan¬
ning. A number of us in the Middle
West are very deeply concerned with
respect to the damage that has just come
about by reason of the floods in the
Middle West, especially. Will the chair¬
man of the committee give us some idea
as to what we may expect in the way of
legislation to take care of that situation
in the immediate future?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That was the
first statement I made when I began my
remarks. I stated that the committee
had requested the Chief of Engineers to
look into this matter, and he has gone
out personally and has instructed the
district and division engineers to in¬
vestigate, so that when we come hefore
you, as we expect to, with a recom¬
mendation for an emergency appropria¬
tion to repair those damages caused by
one of the major floods in the history of
the country, we shall have something
definite on which to base a recommenda¬
tion to Congress. I trust that we shall
be able to submit a recommendation in
the next few days.
Mr. REES of Kansas. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to th^
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. I want to ask this ques¬
tion for the record. Referring to sec¬
tion 1 of the bill, which provides that
the investigation shall be under the Sec¬
retary of War an I the Department of
Agriculture, it is not the intention of
the committee, is it, that this would pre¬
vent the Bureau of Reclamation from
continuing the type of investigations
they are now authorized to make under
existing law?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Not at all. On
the contrary, the investigation as far as
the Department of Agriculture is con¬
cerned is limited to such matters as
watersheds and measures of run-offs.
It is the language that has been em¬
ployed in all previous flood-control bills,
beginning in 1936.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. BISHOP. Do I correctly under¬
stand that the money that will be ap¬
propriated as the result of this bill will
be for repair and not for any new proj¬
ects which will have to do with the con¬
trol of the waters in the future?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. This bill deals
with new projects.
Mr. BISHOP. The old bill carried
money for these repairs.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. There is no
money at all here for emergency repairs.
Last year. Congress appropriated $10,-
000,000, and that was exhausted. I
stated that for the repair of works in
Illinois, Missouri, and other States, made
necessary by the recent floods, we had
asked the chief of engineers to give us a
report. We intend to submit a report, of
course, to provide for any repairs to ex¬
isting works that may be necessary. It
will be something deflnite.
Mr. BISHOP. That will continue im¬
mediately if this bill goes through?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes. This
pending bill has to do with post-war con¬
struction.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. SCRIVNER. In connection with
the statement the gentleman made to
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ReesI
a few minutes ago about these emer¬
gency repairs, the gentleman stated that
that bill might come up within the next
few days. Is there any date on which
the gentleman might flx that time, so
that we might tell the people at home
when this might be contemplated?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The floods are
still in progress. They are at that peak
where nothing could be done presently.
It is soggy and boggy out there. Before
the committee makes a recommendation
to Congress, we want to have the facts
and figures on which to make the rec¬
ommendation. They acted promptly a
year ago. I think they will act as
promptly as the cii’cumstances permit.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. MURDOCK. On page 25 and the
following pages I see listed here a num¬
ber of items. I know of one that ought
to be listed here but is not so listed.
What are the steps necessary to get a
worthy project listed as these are?
4210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
Mr. WHITTINGTON. For investiga¬
tion? If the gentleman will submit to
the committee the name of the project,
we will take it up with the Chief of
Engineers. If it has not been investi¬
gated and the Chief of Engineers thinks
it should be investigated, we will provide
for it. That may be done in this bill
or in a resolution adopted by the com¬
mittee.
Mr. MURDOCK. This has already
been investigated by the Army engineers
and reported on.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the gentle¬
man will give me the name of the proj¬
ect, I shall be glad to give him an an¬
swer.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has again
expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
I now want to make an analysis of the
bill. If you have the bill before you,
it might be helpful, if you follow me.
The first section of the bill reaffirms
the existing law, as I stated to the gen¬
tleman from Nebraska. It inserts there
“channel and major drainage improve¬
ments,” because channel improvements
are sometimes essential in flood control.
Section 2 of the bill is identical with
existing law. It relates to the policy re¬
garding the requirements of local con¬
tributions, and makes those require¬
ments applicable to the projects author¬
ized in -this bill.
With respect to recreational facilities,
in section 3, under the policy that has
been adopted frequently at reservoirs,
authorizing a small pool, it provides for
recreation, for swimming, or for fishing.
People may come there as they do at
other lakes who would like to have res¬
ervations for recreation. Section 3 au¬
thorizes the Secretary of War to lease or
sell for longer than 5 years the lands
there if people want to build small cot¬
tages on any of the lands bordering these
lakes or pools. The word “facility”
means and should be construed to mean
that if in the selling of those leases for
the building of cottages it is necessary
to put in a highway or road, that facility
will be authorized.
Mr. MILLER of Missouri. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. MILLER of Missouri. What is the
gentleman’s intei’pretation of the lan¬
guage in line 25, in section 3, which re¬
lates to other facilities thereat advan¬
tageous to the interests of the United
States?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am glad the
gentleman referred to this. The word
“thereat” is important. As I stated a
moment ago, it embraces the matter of
constructing a local road to get around
to those lands that may be sold to people
for the purpose of building cottages or
having a place there to fish in the pool.
It has nothing on earth to do with rec¬
lamation or with power.
Section 4 provides that if there is a
town or a city or a municipality that
needs an additional water supply — and
water is just as essential for human be-
/ ings as it is for crops — the Chief of En¬
gineers shall have the right to provide
that that water shall be used there for
the purpose of supplying the needs of
man. It strikes me that that provision
is a power that now obtains under the
reclamation law. If it obtains under the
reclamation law, I know of no good rea¬
son why it should not obtain in the ex¬
isting bill.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Will the gentle¬
man define the word “surplus” used in
section 4 in referring to surplus water?
In the West we have the doctrine of ap¬
propriation, for all water in a stream is
appropriated. I anticipate a flood-con¬
trol project where that water would be
stored temporarily. It would not be sur¬
plus water. It is appropriated for irri¬
gation purposes. The gentleman does
not mean to interfere with any appro¬
priated water?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No. I would
think that this had primary reference
to reservoirs for flood control. My gen¬
eral judgment, in answer to the gentle¬
man’s question, is that practically all of
that water is surplus, and that may be
disposed of, if the reservoir is for flood
control.
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will be glad to
yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Will the
gentleman please explain what is meant
by the words in line 12, “any reservoir in
control of the War Department.” What
I am aiming at is, does this mean all
reservoirs built under this law will be
managed or operated by the War De¬
partment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Except where
otherwise provided. That is true except
where otherwise provided. This lan¬
guage here means, all reservoirs author¬
ized for flood control that I know any¬
thing about, primarily are under the con¬
trol of the War Department.
Mr, J. LEROY JOHNSON. I am think¬
ing of one reservoir we built, or rather,
which the city I live in built. You are
going to enlarge that dam and make the
reservoir larger. Will the city manage¬
ment that pertains there now be sup¬
planted by the War Department manage-'
ment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is a fail-
question. Whenever the city, county,
and State decides that they want Federal
cooperation, as a general rule that city
and that county or that State will sacri¬
fice local supervision, because it is the
universal policy for Uncle Sam to fol¬
low the dollar that he invests by giving
his agents, the representatives of the en¬
tire people, supervision of the project.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has again ex¬
pired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
Mr. Chairman, section 5 merely gives
the Chief Engineer as the representative
of the Government, supervision over res¬
ervoirs that the Government has built
for flood control.
Mr. KEFAU'VER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will be glad
to yield.
Mr. KEFAU'VER. I would like to ask
the gentleman a question in connection
with section 5, which gives the Chief of
Engineers supervision over reservoirs. Of
course, under the law, the Tennessee
'Valley Authoi-ity dams are operated for
multiple purposes.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
if the gentleman is going into that ques¬
tion I rather hate to ask for additional
time and wish that the gentleman would
reserve that question for a moment, if he
will.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will yield in
just a moment. I would ask the gen¬
tleman to reserve his question.
Section 5 gives supervision of opera¬
tion for flood control and navigation to
the Chief of Engineers.
Section 6 speaks for itself in an effort
to lean over backward, and gives to the
Secretary of the Interior power of han¬
dling reclamation and the disposal of
reclamation waters provided by the proj -
ects authorized in this bill.
Section 7 authorizes the adoption of
projects named in the bill, extending from
the Connecticut 'Valley in New England
to Los Angeles and from Portland to
Florida in practically every river basin
in the United States. The next section
of the bill authorizes preliminary ex¬
amination and surveys on streams that
have not been reported.
Then this bill authorizes soil-conserva¬
tion projects that have been reported to
the committee by the Department of
Agriculture, and authorizes the reappro¬
priation of the balance of $10,000,000
that has been used in this work, and
makes provision for temporary repau-s.
Mr. Chairman, I want to yield to the
gentleman from Tennessee, and I want
to yield to the gentleman from 'Vermont,
but I hesitate to ask for additional time.
But may I ask the gentleman from Ten¬
nessee [Mr. Kefatjver] what is his ques¬
tion?
Mr. KEFAU'VER. It seems to me these
dams on the Tennessee River under the
Tennessee "Valley Authority should be
excluded from the supervision of the
Secretary of War.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. They may be and
they may not be, but personally I think
if the Tennessee "Valley Authority was
authorized and sustained by the Supreme
Court, primarily for the development and
improvement of navigation and flood con¬
trol, that the Chief of Engineers, the rep¬
resentative of the Government, should
have something to do with its utiliza¬
tion to provide for flood control. I will
come to that later and discuss it under
the 5-minute rule, if necessary.
I now yield to the gentleman from
"Vermont tMr. Plumley].
Mr. PLUMLEY. Will the gentleman
define what is meant by the words “con¬
struction of a high dam” on page 5,
line 19?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am glad to do
that if the gentleman desires.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
My construction of that is it does not
provide for construction of a power dam
in Vermont at Williamsville, but only
for a flood-control dam as contemplated
by the act of 1938.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Am I to understand
that no penstock will be installed?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That would
depend upon the views of the Chief of
Engineers and the Federal Power Com¬
mission, but it does not provide for the
generation of power.
Under leave to extend my remarks, I
should like to say that the two principal
authorizations in the bill under consider¬
ation are for the Missouri River Basin
and for the lower Mississippi River.
There are authorizations of $200,000,000
in each. The authorizations are fully
explained in the report of the committee.
I now return to the analysis of the bill
by sections:
SECTION 1. POLICY
Section 1 is similar to existing law,
and clarifies the language contained in
the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and sub¬
sequent acts to show clearly that flood
control shall be construed to include
channel and major drainage improve¬
ments. It reaffirms the declaration of
policy respecting flood control and pro¬
vides for investigation, planning, and
prosecution by the Corps of Engineers
of the United States Army of flood con¬
trol and allied works, and investigations
of watersheds and measures for run-off
and water-flow retardation and soil-
erosion prevention by the Department
of Agriculture.
SECTION 2. LOCAL COOPERATION
Section 2 is identical with existing
law. It restates the policy regarding
requirements of local cooperation.
SECTION 3. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
To date the Corps of Engineers has
placed in operation some 42 dam and
reservoir projects widely dispersed
throughout the United States. A large
number of these reservoirs present op¬
portunities for recreational development
of widespread interest and benefit at
very little cost. At the present time
there is no authority to expend the small
amounts of funds needed to make the
recreation and conservation values at
these reservoirs fully available. This
committee is of the opinion that where
practicable, without reducing flood-con¬
trol benefits, projects should be fully
utilized to provide recreational facilities
for the benefit of the general public.
Section 3 authorizes the Chief of Engi¬
neers to construct, maintain, and oper¬
ate recreation and conservation facilities
such as roads or to permit the construc¬
tion, maintenance, or operation of such
facilities, and it would authorize the Sec¬
retary of War to grant leases of lands,
structures, or facilities in the reservoir
areas for such periods and upon such
terms as he may deem reasonable.
Existing law, applicable to flood-control
works, limits the period of the lease of
physical property to a maximum of 5
years. The committee feels that such a
limitation on the length of leases for the
development of recreational areas at
flood-control reservoirs would not be in
the public interest and recommends the
removal of this restriction with respect
to leases of Federal property at reser¬
voirs for recreational facilities. This
section also provides that all moneys re¬
ceived for such leases or privileges shall
be deposited in the Ti'easury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts.
SECTION 4. sale OP STORED WATER
Recently in the development of plans
for reservoirs, there have been several
requests for the pimchase of water for
municipal and industrial purposes.
Under existing law, the War Department
is authorized to modify plans for any
reservoir authorized by Congress to pro¬
vide additional storage capacity for do¬
mestic water supply or other conserva¬
tion storage, provided that the cost of
such increased storage is contributed by
local agencies. In several cases small
communities have experienced difficulty
in providing the large lump-sum con¬
tributions prior to construction required
by existing law, and have expressed a
desire to purchase stored water at a unit
price per million gallons. In several
other cases requests have been received
for the purchase of stored water after a
dam and reservoir project has been com¬
pleted. The committee, believing that
full beneficial use should be made of all
Federal projects, is of the opinion that
the Secretary of War should be author¬
ized to sell to States, municipalities, pri¬
vate concerns, or individuals at such
prices and on such terms as he may deem
reasonable, surplus water that may be
available at any reservoir under the con¬
trol of the War Department.
Suitable language has been written
into the bill to accomplish this pur¬
pose; all moneys received from such
sales to be deposited in the Treasury of
the United States as miscellaneous re¬
ceipts.
operatioit’ of multiple-purpose reservoirs -
SECTION 5. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OPERATION
OP FLOOD CONTROL AND NAVIGATION STORAGE
The committee believes that recent ex-
periences in the operation of multiple-
purpose reservoirs during major floods
has demonstrated that to assure the ex¬
pected flood- control benefits reservoirs
constructed wholly or in part with Fed¬
eral funds provided on the basis of flood-
control benefits should have their flood-
control features operated under the su¬
pervision of the Chief of Engineers in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of War.
The bill, therefore, provides that it
shall be the duty of the Secretary of War
to prescribe regulations for the use of
storage available for flood control or
navigation at all reservoirs constructed
wholly or in part with Federal funds pro¬
vided on the basis of such purposes and
requires that the operation of any such
project shall be in accordance with such
regulations.
SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION OF
IRRIGATION STORAGE
The construction of multiple-purpose
reservoirs is in the public interest.
Sound public policy requires not only
that flood-control storage be under the
sui>ervision of the Secretary of War and
the Chief of Engineers but also that stor¬
age for the reclamation of arid lands be
4211
under the supervision of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The committee recognizes that good
administration demands that projects be
built by the agency having the dominant
interest with suitable provisions for safe¬
guarding the interests of other agencies.
Accordingly the bill provides that when¬
ever in the opinion of the Secretary of
War and the Chief of Engineers any dam
and reservoir project operated under the
direction of the Secretary of War can be
consistently used for reclamation of arid
lands it shall be the duty of the Secre¬
tary of the Interior to prescribe regula¬
tions for the use of the storage available
for such purposes, and the operation of
any such project shall be in accordance
with such regulation. Such amounts as
the Secretary of the Interior may deem
reasonable shall be charged for the use
of such stored water; the moneys re¬
ceived to be deposited into the Treasury
to the credit of miscellaneous receipts.
SECTION 7. authorization
Section 7 adopts and authorizes the
improvements, as set forth in the bill,
for post-war construction with provisions
for the preparation of necessary plans,
specifications, and preliminary work
during the war.
I refer again to the report of the com¬
mittee which describes in detail all of
the projects authorized and the support¬
ing reasons. These projects include all
parts of our common country.
SECTION 8. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS AND
SURVEYS
Section 8 of the bill authorizes and
directs the Secretary of War to cause
preliminary examinations and surveys
for flood control and allied purposes, in¬
cluding channel and major drainage im¬
provements and protection from floods
aggravated by or due to tidal effect, at
the localities designated in said section;
and the Secretary of Agriculture is au¬
thorized and directed to cause prelim¬
inary examinations and surveys for run-
; off and water-flow retardation and soil
, erosion prevention on the watersheds
of these same localities,
j This section is similar to examination
■ and survey sections contained in the
Flood Control Acts of 1936 and subse¬
quent acts and it clarifies the language
contained in those acts to show definitely
' that the words “flood control” shall be
construed to include channel and major
drainage improvements. In accordance
v/ith its usual policy, the Flood Control
Committee has included in this section
the ^streams and areas in all bills for
examinations and surveys which have
been introduced since the last general
flood-control act.
SECTION 9. AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The general flood-control legislation
enacted between 1936 and 1941, inclusive,
has provided authorizations totaling
$965,000,000 for the construction of 460
reservoirs and local flood-protection
projects. Of these, 185 projects have
been substantially completed and 46
more projects were in various stages of
construction when suspended in order to
conserve materials, equipment, and man¬
power for the war effort. Details of the
present status of the authorized flood-
control program are contained in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
4212
tabulations on pages 50 and 51 of the
report.
The committee wishes to emphasize
that this is a post-war bill to assist in
attaining two very worthy post-war ob¬
jectives, to wit: Orderly adjustment from
war to peace and protection of lives and
property from the ravages of floods. This
bill proposes to approve 112 worthy flood-
control projects recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and to increase the
authorizations for flood-control con¬
struction in the amount of $810,000,000.
This authorization added to the amounts
remaining available from prior legisla¬
tion will provide a large working balance
for numerous projects well distributed
across the Nation and diversified as to
type between large dams, concrete flood
walls, channel improvements, earth
levees, and combinations of these types.
The greatest concentration of work is in
the populous areas where hazards are
most serious and where post-war adjust¬
ment will be most severe.
The progress of carrying out these au¬
thorizations will be determined by Con¬
gress through control of the amounts ap¬
propriated for flood-control work. The
committee has been assured by the Chief
of Engineers that the Corps of Engineers
is ready and able to embark on a very
large program of flood-control construc¬
tion subject only to the availability of
authorization and appropriations. At
the rate of appropriations before the war-
emergency this bill will provide for about
6 years of construction. If post-war ap¬
propriations are larger, there will be con¬
sequent speeding up of work. The com¬
mittee believes that enactment of this
bill is an essential element in prepara¬
tion for a large public-works program of
worthy and carefully conceived projects
and it strongly recommends speedy ac¬
tion on the bill.
SECTION 10. PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE
SECRUTARY OP AGRICULTURE
Section 10 authorizes the prosecution
of measures for run-off and water-flow
retardation and soil-erosion prevention
by the Department of Agriculture on
eight watersheds on which that Depart¬
ment has made surveys pursuant to the
acts of 1936 and 1938 and for which
projects have been reported favorably by
the Secretary of Agriculture. These
projects, as provided by law, have been
reviewed by and correlated with the
plans of the Corps of Engineers.
The works of improvement included in
these eight projects will afford substan¬
tial reductions in the damages suffered
from the frequent small and medium¬
sized floods that occur on headwater
tributary streams generally upstream
from works planned by the Corps of En¬
gineers. They will also reduce greatly
the quantity of erosion debris deposited
in stream channels and reservoirs and
upon flood plains. In addition, impor¬
tant benefits will accrue to the owners
and operators of lands, upon which the
measures will be applied, in the form of
increased yields of crops and forest prod¬
ucts, and increased productivity of pas¬
ture due to reduction in erosion and Im¬
provement in density and quality of
vegetative cover.
The works proposed on these eight
projects will provide a valuable comple¬
ment to structures on waterways that
have been or are likely to be built by the
Corps of Engineers.
SECTION 11. REAUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Section 11 reauthorizes the balance of
the appropriation of $10,000,000, previ¬
ously authorized in the fact of June 28,
1938, for expenditure by the Department
of Agriculture for the improvement of
watersheds during the post-war period.
SECTION 12. EMERGENCY WORK BY THE DEPART¬
MENT OF AGRICUITXJRE
Section 12 of this bill amends section 7,
of the act of June 28, 1938. This amend¬
ment would perilait the Secretary of Agri¬
culture to undertake emergency meas¬
ures on denuded watersheds to prevent
hazards due to flash floods and destruc¬
tive erosion that follow the loss of pro¬
tective cover by forest fires or other ca¬
tastrophes, especially in areas of steep
slopes and erodible soils. Such emer¬
gency measures would be authorized
without, in every case, having to wait for |
specific authorization to the Corps of i
Engineers for engineering structures on j
the waterways concerned. A limitation
of $100,000 a year is imposed.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WHIT-
TINCirTON received permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 15 minutes, and I also ask unani¬
mous consent to revise and extend my
remarks and include a table in Docu¬
ment 724.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, the
House Committee on Flood Control has
had under consideration for several
months the preparation of an omnibus
flood-control bill to be presented at this
session. Hearings commenced on Feb¬
ruary 1 after the groundwork for prop¬
er consideration of various projects had
been laid. The hearings have proceeded
from day to day until all of the projects
upon which the Corps of Engineers have
made reports to Congress have been con¬
sidered.
I wish to pay personal tribute at this
time to the gentleman from Mississippi,
Hon. Will M. Whittington, chairman
of the Flood Control Committee. Dur¬
ing all the 8 years that I have served in
Congress, I have been a member of this
committee. The gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi, Congressman Whittington, has
been the chairman during the entire
period. From my own observation and
experience, I would range the gentleman
from Mississippi, Congressman Whit¬
tington, as outstanding among all chair¬
men of committees. He has a thorough
knowledge of flood-control conditions
and projects throughout the Nation. He
has a particularly happy way of han¬
dling witnesses so that each one knows
that he is receiving the close personal
attention of the committee. At the same
time the hearings proceed in a very or¬
derly manner and with dispatch. Fur¬
thermore, the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi, Congressman Whittington, has
gained the complete confidence of all
members of the committee, who appre¬
ciate his many personal kindnesses to
each of them, while at the same time
granting to every Member of Congress
the same consideration given to a mem¬
ber of the committee. I am sure that all
members of the committee will be in full
accord with me in my statement that our
chairman is held not only in the high¬
est regard by them as a congressional
leader, but is also looked upon as a close
personal friend by every member of the
committee.
This bill provides for the construction
of important flood-control projects in
every section of the United States in the
post-war period. They will provide
work for many thousands of men and
women during a period of 5 years. It
therefore is of great importance not only
in furnishing permanent public works
for flood protection greatly needed
throughout the country but also in pro¬
viding a backlog of worth-while jobs
during the difficult period of transition
from war to peace.
The bill calls for the expenditure of
more than $800,000,000. Each of the
many projects contained in it has been
recommended by the Army engineers.
; In each case the annual benefits accru-
( ing to the people of the United States
j will exceed the annual costs. The com-
I pletion of these projects will be of untold
j benefit to the Nation in preventing re¬
curring annual losses of lives and prop¬
erty. It is interesting to consider the
advantages to be derived in each river
basin. Since other Congressmen plan to
speak about projects in their sections of
the country, I will confine my remarks
to New England. The gentleman from
Mississippi, Chairman Whittington, has
given us such a fine general statement
of our national flood-control needs that
little more can be added on the over-all
program. In the Connecticut River Ba¬
sin, in which I live, we have had 3 recent
major floods in 1927, 1936, and 1938.
These 3 tremendous flood%caused direct
losses of $75,622,000, and indirect losses
of $68,712,000 — a grand total loss of $144,-
334,000. In addition, 28 lives have been
lost. Other lesser floods have added mil¬
lions of dollars to the losses incurred in
the basin during the past 25 years. Ver¬
mont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and Connecticut have suffered heavily
from the ravages of the Connecticut
River. Today it is one of the few basins
of comparable size in the United States
to be without adequate flood protection.
Following the great flood of 1927 the
United States engineers were authorized
by Congress to determine the best meth¬
ods for solving the flood problems created
by the Connecticut River. They studied
the values of some 275 sites for reservoirs.
They submitted their conclusions and a
comprehensive flood-control plan, which
was authorized in the Flood Control Act
of 1938. It provided for a system of 20
flood -control reservoirs with local pro¬
tective works at 7 localities along the
Connecticut River. The reservoirs will
control 2,752 square miles, almost 25 per¬
cent of the drainage area of the river.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 4213
The average annual flood-control
benefits of the system are estimated to
be $3,874,000, and the average annual
flood control costs $2,898,400. In other
words, the comprehensive plan when
fully carried out will save the residents
of the valley about $1,000,000 a year in
money and much more in sorrow and
actual suffering. This system of reser¬
voirs will decrease the stage of the maxi¬
mum flood of record at Hartford about
6 feet and about 5y2 feet at Springfield.
The 1938 Flood Control Act contains a
provision that the entire cost of the
reservoirs in this program will be borne
by the Federal Government and that the
localities benefited must share In the
cost of the local protective works.
Five of the flood-control resei’voirs are
planned for Massachusetts, 5 for New
Hampshire, and 10 for Vermont. To
date, 3 of the 20 have been constructed:
Surry Mountain Dam on the Ashuelot
River north of Keene, N. H.; Birch Hill
Dam on the Millers River near South
Royalston, Mass. ; and Knightsville Dam
in the town of Huntington on the West-
field River in western Massachusetts.
Dikes and flood walls with attendant
The total cost of the program to the
United States, as now estimated, will be
$57,460,000 for reservoirs and $18,070,000
for local protective works, or a total of
$75,530,000. It is probable that the final
cost will be somewhat in excess of that
amount. If this bill becomes law, there
will have been authorized for appropria¬
tion to carry out most of the program
approximately $70,000,000.
One of the reservoirs in the system will
be located on West River near Williams-
ville, Vt. The Federal Power Commis¬
sion has recommended that it be con¬
structed to provide for both flood control
and power development. The committee
was advised that such a reservoir with
power genei’ating facilities would cost
about $29,100,000. If developed for
flood-control purposes only it is esti¬
mated to cost $6,280,000. For flood-con¬
trol purposes only a low dam would be
built, while a high dam, with an increase
drainage and pumping facilities have
been or will be constructed at 7
localities.
Local protective works have been con¬
structed at Northampton, Holyoke,
Chicopee, Springfield, and West Spring-
field in Massachusetts, and at Hartford
and East Hartford in Connecticut.
Under the act of 1938 the total cost to
the United States of the 20 reservoirs and
the 7 local protective works was esti¬
mated at $46,359,000, consisting of
$34,835,000 for the reservoirs and
$11,524,000 for the protective works.
Later modifications in the original plans
increased the cost of the reservoirs to
$57,460,000 and of the protective works
to $17,000,000. These modifications
were authorized by the act of 1941.
Additional local protective works at
Holyoke, Springfield, West Springfield,
and Winsted, Conn., have been author¬
ized at a cost to the United States of
$1,070,000 out of a total cost of
$1,185,000.
General features and estimates of cost
of the approved plan for reservoirs with
modifications now considered desirable
are as follows;
of 82 feet in height, would be necessary
for both flood control and power develop¬
ment. Witnesses from Vermont opposed
the construction of a dam at this site
which would include power development
while asserting that the people of Ver¬
mont would not oppose the construction
of flood-control reservoirs without power
facilities within that State. The com¬
mittee decided that it would be best to
construct the reservoirs without power
development in accordance with the
above table of reservoirs as set forth in
Document No. 724 of the Seventy-sixth
Congress, third session. The bill, H. R.
4485, therefore contains the explicit pro¬
visions that neither this authorization
nor previous authorizations shall be con¬
strued to authorize the construction of
a high dam at the Williamsville site.
The objection of the people of Vermont
has been fully taken care of by this
proviso.
In other words, the committee has
taken any authorization for appropria¬
tion for power at the Williamsville site
out of the bill. In order to have power it
would cost $29,100,000. We have so
.worded the bill that it will only result
in the expenditure of $6,280,000 at the
site, for flood-control purposes only.
Further than that, as far as the dam
on the West River is concerned, that is
the most important tributary of the Con¬
necticut River. It drains an area 60
percent greater than any other tributary.
Engineers tell us it is the most important
site for a dam in the entire system for
the Connecticut River. l feel that the
people of all four States will believe that
the committee has acted wisely and fairly
in asking for an authorization for flood -
control purposes only, for this dam to be
built on the West River, and that the
Congress has acted fairly in meeting the
wishes of the people of Vermont in not
authorizing the expenditure of any
money for power in these Vermont dams.
It is well to note that if this flood-
control program had been carried out 25
years ago it would have effected savings
of more than twice its estimated cost
during that period. Already real savings
have been effected by the construction
of the 3 reservoirs now in operation
and the 7 local protective works. The
authorization in this bill, together with
sums already authorized to be appro¬
priated in existing laws, will complete
all authorized local protective works and
16 additional reservoirs. Only 1 reser¬
voir in New Hampshire will require addi¬
tional authorization for funds in the
future. An adequate, comprehensive
flood-control system for the Connecti¬
cut River Basin will have been provided
by the Federal Government. Protection
greatly needed for the very important
agricultural and industrial communities
of 4 States will have been secured
throughout the length of the valley of
the Connecticut River, the great river of
New England. As one who was a mem¬
ber of the Flood Control Committee of
the House when this splendid program
of the United States engineers was con¬
sidered and reported favorably, it has
been particularly gratifying to me to see
successive Congresses enact into laws the
legislation necessary to bring the system
to completion. It will bring results bene¬
ficial to the entire Nation.
I believe this bill, H. R. 4485, contains
many projects of incalculable benefit to
the American people. I urge its passage.
As it stands today, our flood-control
bills of 1938 and 1941 have resulted in
a change in the position of Congress, the
Federal Government, on the question of
how to handle expenditures for flood
control purposes in reservoirs and local
protective works. Before 1938 the
States, where a river went through more
than one State, used to combine in
compacts and try to arraijge between
themselves some sort of a program for
building reservoirs which would be ade¬
quate. I doubt if in any single river
basin in the United States any such com¬
pact was ever agreed upon and finally
constructed.
You who were here in 1938 will re¬
call that we had a considerable struggle
Drain¬
age area
(s(|uare.
mile.s)
(2)
Capacity
(acre-
feet)
(4)
Costs
Flood con¬
trol
(6)
Adapta¬
tions for
power
(6)
Total flood
control
plus adap¬
tations
(7)
1(>4
39, 300
$2, 318, 000
.$433, 000
$2, 751, 000
lOfi
33, 9t)0
2, 317, 000
2, 317, 000
24,300
965,000
965,000
so
22, 1,50
06,5, 000
94,000
759, 000
175
49, 900
3, 005, 000
3, 005, 000
70
26,200
1, 935, 000
1, 935, 000
100
32, 500
1, 620, 000
1. 620, 000
245
78,400
5, 160, 000
5. 160, 000
80
34, 100
2, 240, 000
280, 000
2. 520, 000
240
91, (kX)
6, 530, 000
6, 530, 000
400
150, 000
5, 960, 000
320, 000
6, 280, 000
.58
21,600
1, 975, 000
1,975,000
101
32, 300
2, 944, 000
2, 944, OtlO
‘ 102
33,400
2, 018, 000
2, 018, 000
56
23,900
1, 741, 000
459, 000
2, 200, 000
222
71, 100
3, 630, 000
3, 630, 000
102
32, COO
2, 275, 000
2, 275, 000
220
84, 300
4, 080, 000
705, 000
4, 785, 000
126
30,200
1, 944, 000
432,000
2, 376, 000
06
28, 200
1, 023, 000
392, 000
1, 415, 000
2,752
939, 960
64, 345, 000
3,115,000
57, 460, 000
Refer¬
ence
Ko.
Reservoir
fl)
Stream
(2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20
Knightville . .
West Brookfield...
Barro Falls .
Tullv.. .
Birch Hill. .
Honey Hill... .
Surry Mountain..
Claremont _
West Canaan .
.Sugar Hill.. .
Williamsville _
Cambridgeport _
Brockway _
North Springfield.
Ludlow _ _
North Hartland...
South Tunbridge..
Oaysville . .
Union Village _
Victory... . .
Westfield _ _
Chicopee (Quaboag) _
Chicopee (Ware.) . .
Millers (Tully) .
Millers _ _ _
Ashuelot (South Branch).
Ashuelot . .
Sugar . . . .
Mas coma _ _ _ _ _
Aramonoosuo . . .
West- .
Saxtons. . . . .
W^illiams . .
Black .
. do . - .
Ottauquechee _ _
White (First Branch) _
White-. . - . .
Ompompanoosuc . .
Passumpsic (Moose) _
Total.
■ Exclusive of drainage area above Ludlow.
No. 81-
4214
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 8
over the Connecticut River compact. I
led the fight, as far as I could, for the
adoption of the Connecticut River com¬
pact, which had been entered into by
New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu¬
setts, and Connecticut. You will recall
that a considerable majority of the Con¬
gress decided that they did not feel that
was the way to handle such situations,
and they passed a bill in 1938 which
provided that thereafter the Federal
Government shall pay 100 percent of the
cost of flood-control reservoirs which are
built on any navigable rivers. I think if
we are going to change our position at
this time it should be done in connection
with some other bill.
This bill today does not provide for the
adoption of any comprehensive program
or any program for construction in the
Connecticut River Basin. Everything to
be built there, local protective works and
all reservoirs, is already authorized for
construction under the act of 1938, as
modified by the act of 1941. Therefore,
any change in connection with the pro¬
gram today w’ith reference to construc¬
tion of any particular dam would be a
change back to what was in existence
prior to 1938. I do not believe that is the
intent of Congress.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLASON. I yield.
Mr. DONDERO. I notice on the bot¬
tom of page 2, and at the top of page 3
of the bill, language very similar to the
language which was contained in the re¬
cent river and harbor bill, which the
House struck out. It is a wide delegation
of power to the Secretary of War and
the Chief of Engineers “To construct, op¬
erate, and maintain recreational facili¬
ties and other facilities.”
Does the gentleman believe that Con¬
gress should go on record and grant that
wide delegation of power?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Massachusetts has ex¬
pired.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 6 additional minutes.
Mr. Chairman, answering the gentle¬
man from Michigan, I may say that the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whit¬
tington] covered that quite thoroughly
in his address both at the very start and
later in answer to questions that were
directed to him. The words “other
facilities” do not apply to power or any¬
thing of that sort; they apply merely as
to roads and other accessories. They do
not apply and have not applied in the
past to the constniction of facilities like
power conservation or reclamation, and
they have no meaning like that in this
bill.
Mr. DONDERO. The reason for ask¬
ing the question is that the people of the
United States feel that Congress should
take back to itself some of its preroga¬
tives. They feel that the Congress
should legislate rather than delegate
powers, and I feel that we may convey
an impression to the country that we are
delegating more power.
Mr. CLASON. That was not the in¬
tention of the committee at the time of
the adoption of that provision.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLASON. I yield.
Mr. PLUMLEY. I do not wish to pro¬
ject myself too much into this situation,
but the gentleman’s reference to what
the attorney general of the .State of Ver¬
mont said leads me to inquire what con¬
stitutes a high dam.
Mr. CLASON. I believe that is testi¬
fied to on page 723 of the hearings where
General Robins was testifying and the
Chairman, the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi [Mr. Whittington] was doing the
interrogating. Prom the hearings I
quote the following:
The Chairman. Is this figure of $27,000,000
or $28,000,000 one that Includes the estimated
cost of that dam when and If it were raised
and constructed now for power, as well as an
installation of something like $6,000,000 or
$8,000,000 for power facilities?
General Robins. That $29,000,000 includes
raising the dam about 82 feet, building a
powerhouse, and installing all power ma¬
chinery.
The Chairman. In this area where the dam
is located — what is the type of country, the
terrain there with respect to being arable?
Colonel Goethals. Taking the high dam,
the classification of lands in the flooded area
is 76 percent wooded land, 14 percent agri¬
culture, 6 percent pasture, 2 percent urban,
and 2 percent swamps.
The Chairman. And the entire acreage re¬
quired for that reservoir would be how
much?
Colonel Goethals. For the high dam, 5,430
acres, and for the low dam, 2,460 acres.
The Chairman. For the $19,000,000 dam,
2,460 acres. Is that true or not?
The high dam mentioned there, and as
Colonel Goethals explained it, is the
power dam of 82 additional feet. The low
dam is used for flood control. The word¬
ing of the amendment as it was put in
the bill was prepared by the Army engi¬
neers to make certain that this dam
would be used for flood control and not
for power.
Mr. PLUMLEY. But does not the gen¬
tleman know just as well as I do that
comprehensively you have delegated the
power and the authority to the Army
engineers to determine what shall con¬
stitute a high dam or a low dam irre¬
spective of what they may say to the
gentleman’s committee in those minutes
to which the gentleman refers? I call the
gentleman’s attention to page 705 of the
hearings.
Mr. CLASON. I am afraid the gentle¬
man overlooks Document 724, adopted in
1938, as modified in 1941. It expressly
states, and it was adopted by the Con¬
gress, what kind of a dam shall be con¬
structed at Williamsville on the West
River:
Drainage area, 400 square miles; capacity,
150,000 acre-feet; flood-control cost, $5,960,-
000, plus adaptations for power, $320,000,
meaning the pen stock; a total of $6,280,000.
That is the program which Congress
has adopted, and it does not include the
high dam to which the gentleman has
been referring.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Nevertheless, I want
to put this in the Record. The gentle¬
man’s recollection of what the Army
engineers asked for is not my recollec¬
tion. My recollection is that the act to
which the gentleman referred author¬
ized the Chief of Engineers to make any
modifications .that might be found to be
justifiable in his discretion.
Mr. CLASON. But he would have to do
it within the $6,280,000, because that
would be all the money available.
Mr. PLUMLEY. But all he would have
to do would be to come back to Congress
and ask for more money.
Mr. CLASON. That would require a
change in the law which certainly is not
contained in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Massachusetts has ex¬
pired.
Mr. pLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Curtis].
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, it has
been my privilege to serve on the Flood
Control Committee continuously since I
first came to Congress in January 1939.
I have attended practically all of the
hearings conducted by that committee
throughout these years. I consider it
both a privilege and an opportunity to
work with the very able, efBcient, and
fair chairman, the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi, the Honorable Will M. Whit¬
tington. I have a high regard and
esteem for the Army engineers with
whom we have worked. I consider them
public servants of the first order.
This omnibus flood-control bill is the
first flood-control bill that we have had
before the House of Representatives since
the act of 1941. Due to the necessities
of war, all flood-control construction has
been suspended with the exception of a
minimum amount of temporary and
emergency work. This bill contains the
authorization for many flood-control
projects throughout the United States.
Every project coptained in this bill has
the approval of the district engineer, the
division engineer, the Board of Review
of Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief of
Engineers.
This bill is a compromise. It must be
so. Any legislation, national in scope,
usually is the result of compromise.
Flood control plans and their allied
plans, including irrigation, power devel-
opmeni, and other features bring forth
complicating interests, community and
sectional interests, differences between
industries, differences of individual opin¬
ion, both of the layman and the expert,
and sometimes departmental differences
and jealousies. If we waited to iron out
all of these things before we advanced the
bill in the Congress of the United States
for needed public works on our rivers,
there just never would be any legislation
and, consequently, no construction at all.
The committee has done that which they
thought wisest and best in the handling
of not one diflScult problem, but many
difficult problems, in every section of
the United States.
It is true that the works authorized
in this bill are for the post-war period.
I want to make my position clear, how- '
ever, in regard to that. I am not support¬
ing any of these projects because they
will produce employment in the post-war
days. The works programs of the
thirties were a failure so far as bring¬
ing about reemnlovment. We exhausted
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
both the alphabet and the Federal Treas¬
ury with works programs, but we ended
up with more people hunting a real job
than we started with. We ended up with
local, State, and National Governments
spending more for relief than they did
when the works programs were started. “
There were some very fine public works
constructed during these works pro¬
grams, including some fine irrigation
projects, but a works program for the
sake of working in a hope that it will
relieve unemployment is a proven failure,
f am supporting this bill, because it
represents needed public works. It will
bring flood relief to distressed areas and
save valuable land and other property.
It will save human lives. It will pro¬
vide additional irrigation, which will add
to the productiveness of our country.
I come from a part of the United
States where water means life. Adequate
water for the crops is the difference
between prosperity and poverty. Be¬
cause I believe that these projects are
in the public good and are worth while
in themselves, I support this bill.
The bill has a number of important
features. This bill lays down the prin¬
ciple that all reservoirs constructed with
Federal funds, which have storage space
available for flood control, shall be oper¬
ated under the regulations of the War
Department. This is common sense. It
is absolutely necessary if we are going to
protect the property and the life of the
people in the flooded areas. There must
be a central agency operating the res¬
ervoirs. Likewise, this bill provides that
whenever any reservoir is being operated
by the War Department, it is found that
there is available v/ater for irrigating
farm lands, that the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion, through the Secretary of the. In¬
terior, shall prescribe the rules and reg¬
ulations for the operation of that part
of the storage that is available for ir¬
rigation. In other words, it gives the
Bureau of Reclamation jurisdiction over
the irrigation features of the reservoirs
and the distribution systems. I think
this is sound and advisable. I am told by
individuals in the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion that it is a definite gain for them
and a step forward.
I want to direct my remarks now in
reference to the Missouri River Basin.
The bill before us has in it the first sub¬
stantial authorization for that area.
The Missouri River Basin represents
one-sixth of the ai’ea of the United
States. In that area you will find a great
deal of the finest- and best agricultural
land in the world. The Missouri River
Basin includes a great portion of Mis¬
souri, Iowa, Kansas, North and South
Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Colo¬
rado, and all of the State of Nebraska.
The State of Nebraska is the only State
lying entirely wdthin the basin of the
Missouri River. This area is a great
breadbasket for the entire world. In
the basin can be found great industrial
and manufacturing cities. It is indeed
the great heart of America.
Although the Missouri Valley has
always been subject to sevei’e floods very
little flood-control work has ever been
authorized for that great territory.
Compared to the flood-control program
in other parts of the United States, the
Missouri River Basin has been exceed¬
ingly neglected. In the years gone by
there have been a few flood-control
works constructed at various local points,
but with the exception of the local pro¬
tection constructed at the Kansas Cities,
the other works have been small and of
minor nature.
In the Flood Control Act of 1938 there
was an authorization for an appropria¬
tion of $9,000,000 for a basin- wide flood-
control program. This authorization
has been used on the Kanapolis reser¬
voir in the State of Kansas. Three
years later, in 1941, there was an addi¬
tional authorization of $7,000,000, which
was earmarked for the initial construc¬
tion of the Harlan County Reservoir on
the Republican River in the State of
Nebraska. The Republican Valley had
suffered a loss, running into millions and
millions of dollars in property damage
and in destruction to farm lands. From
the standpoint of the loss of human life
by reason of flood, the Republican River
has suffered greater than most any other
river in the United States. I will have
moi’e to say about the details of the flood
problem on the Republican River a little
later in my remarks.
The main stem of the Missouri River
suffers from annual floods, sometimes
more than one flood per year. Exceed¬
ingly valuable farm land is annually
flooded. The destruction in the cities
along the river has been considerable.
It has tied up transportation systems
and created havoc in that territory. In
the spring of 1943, a disastrous flood oc¬
curred. Following that flood, the Con¬
gress of the United States appropriated
$10,000,000 for temporary emergency
flood-control work, $3,000,000 of which
was set aside for the Missouri River. The
division engineer at Omaha, Lewis A.
Pick, then a colonel but now a brigadier
general, appeared before our committee
and outlined the problem in this great
Missouri River Basin. It was evident
that a satisfactory solution to the flood
problem would have to Include bank pro¬
tection in the way of levees and dikes on
the main stream and in addition thereto
a series of reservoirs and dams on the
tributaries to hold this great flow of
water at flood time.
Following the flood-control hearings of
1943, as a member of the Committee on
Flood Control, I introduced a resolution
for myself and a number of the inter¬
ested Congressmen from the valley, ask¬
ing that a further report be made by the
Army engineers with respect to flood
control along the main stem of the Mis¬
souri River. That resolution was as fol¬
lows:
RESOLUTION BY REPRESENTATIVE CARL T. CURTIS,
OF NEBRASKA
(Introduced May 6, 1943)
Resolved by the Committee on Flood Con¬
trol, House of Representatives, That the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors
created under section 3 of the River and Har¬
bor Act approved June 13, 1902, be, and is
hereby requested to review the reports on
the Missouri River contained in House Docu¬
ment No. 238, Seventy-third Congress, sec¬
ond session, and House Document No. 821,
Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, with a
view to determining whether any modlflca-
4215
tion should be made therein at this time with
respect to flood control along the main stem
of the Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa,
to its mouth.
The foregoing resolution was duly ap¬
proved by the Committee on Flood Con¬
trol, and, pursuant to said resolution,
the Secretary of War transmitted the
flood-control plan, known as the Pick
plan, embodied in House Document
475, to the Congress of the United States
on February 28, 1944, The bill before us
approves the plan set forth in House
Document 475 and authorizes an appro¬
priation of $200,000,000 for the partial
accomplishment thereof.
Along the Missouri River, between
Sioux City, Iowa, and Rulo, Nebr., there
are about 926,000 acres of land in the
valley of the Missouri River, which would
be protected from flooding after con¬
struction of the plan proposed in House
Document 475, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session. The proposed work con¬
sists of levees supplemented by reservoirs
above Sioux City, Iowa. At present there
are numerous local levees which have
been constructed by local interests to pro¬
vide some measure of protection from
floods for a part of the area. These
levees have not been planned with an
over-all view of the flood-protection
problem, and are inadequate to provide
protection except from minor floods.
During the flood of April 1943, nearly
all of the existing levees along the Mis¬
souri River failed and 200,000 acres of
agricultural land protected by these lev¬
ees were flooded. Following this flood
the engineering department, in the reach
b-'.ween Sioux City, Iowa, and Rulo,
Nebr., repaired about 75 levees and as¬
sisted in the repair of many more levees,
at a cost of nearly $600,000. However,
during the flood which occurred this
April 1944, about 35 levees again failed.
It appears futile to continue to spend
large sums of money for the replacement
of these levees, which are inadequate to
provide protection to this valuable agri¬
cultural land.
In the reach between Sioux City, Iowa,
and Rulo, Nebr., the proposed levees
would have a total length of about 300
miles. They would consist of earth fill
with a 10-foot top width, riverside sloped
1 on 3, landside sloped 1 on 5, and would
average about 12 feet in height. These
levees would not in themselves provide
complete protection and it is impracti¬
cable to construct higher levees because
the cost of necessary features to prevent
sand boils, which would endanger the
safety of the levees, would be excessive.
However, if reservoirs are constructed
upstream from Sioux City, with appro¬
priate reservation for flood-control stor¬
age, and are properly operated, floods
can be reduced to the magnitude which
can be safely passed by the proposed
levees. Seven such reservoirs are pro¬
posed for construction above Sioux City.
The levees would be constructed in
units, each unit made independent of
other units by tying it back to the bluff
or high ground adjacent to tributary
streams. Many miles of railroads and
highways and numerous small munici¬
palities, as well as thpusands of acres of
agricultural land, would therefore receive
4216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
full flood protection by the construction
and operation of the proposed plan. In
addition, the larger industrial cities of
Sioux City and Council Bluffs, Iowa, and
Omaha, Nebr., would receive full flood
protection by the strengthening and
raising of flood-protection works at those
localities.
This Pick plan for the Missouri River
Basin is primarily a flood-control plan.
It does provide, however, for multiple-
purpose reservoirs on the tributaries and
in the upper portions of the river. These
multiple-purpose reservoirs will be so
constructed as to provide for the maxi¬
mum amount of storage of water for
irrigation. A great portion of the Mis¬
souri River Basin is semiarid in nature
and the expansion of irrigation is abso¬
lutely essential to the future prosperity
of that great region.
Much has been said, and some of it of
a controversial nature, in reference to
navigation. Authorization for naviga¬
tion work with the exception of the lower
Mississippi does not come within the ju¬
risdiction of this Committee on Flood
Control. That is handled by the Com¬
mittee on Rivers and Harbors and the
item calling for a 9-foot channel on the
Missouri River is a part of the bill re¬
ported out by that other committee. It
has passed the House and is now before
the Senate. The approval of the Pick
plan does not add or detract from the
navigation issue.
At this point I want to quote from the
hearings before our committee the testi¬
mony of Col, Miles A. Reber, former
di\dsion engineer at Omaha. His testi¬
mony is as follows :
Mr. Curtis. Colonel Reber, as you under¬
stand, another committee has Jurisdiction
of the authorization of navigation works.
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. I would like to ask this ques¬
tion: Would these recommendations (the
Pick plan) be approximately the same if they
proceeded to make a 9-foot channel, or leave
It a 6-foot channel: that is, the recommenda¬
tion in the report that is on its way to this
committee?
Colonel Reber. As I understand the recom¬
mendations and the report which is to come
to this committee, Mr. Curtis, they are for
the general over-all development of the
entire Missouri Basin, Including flood con¬
trol, reclamation, navigation, and power, but
with special reference to flood control from
Sioux City to the mouth.
In response to the resolution of this com¬
mittee, I believe that the recommendations
which are contained in this report would
remain substantially the same, because the
question presented to the Corps of Engineers
by that resolution was to solve the flood-
control problem. As I shall later show, to
solve the flood-control problem between
Sioux City and the mouth involves the use
of multiple-purpose reservoirs upstream.
Mr. Curtis. Your proposal for reservoirs
would remain the same, regardless of what
might happen to this item in another bill
before another committee?
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir; as I understand it.
Mr. Curtis. Is that also true as to your
proposal for levees and appurtenances and
blank work from Sioux City down?
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir.
I am not going to go into detail as to
Just what the Pick plan will do in all of
the States in the Missouri River Basin.
No doubt the gentlemen representing
those States, both north and south of
Nebraska, will cover that part of the
recommendations to the satisfaction of
all. I do believe that the Pick plan
will bring about a much-needed and
long-overdue flood-control system to
protect the farms and towns and cities
along the east edge of Nebraska.
Therefore, I wish to turn my attention
to one of the principal tributaries, to wit,
the Republican River, which involves a
considerable portion of the congressional
district which I have the honor to
represent.
The Republican River and its tribu¬
taries is an important factor in eastern
Colorado, northwestern Kansas, and
southwestern Nebraska. It is a river
that has a constant flood problem. The
worst flood of record was in 1935. This
cost the lives of 110 people. The prop¬
erty damage was enormous. It has been
estimated that there was a million dol¬
lars of property damage to railroads
alone. Considerable farm land was ma¬
terially damaged and it will take many
years to build it back.
The Legislature of Nebraska has me¬
morialized Congress for flood protection
and irrigation development in the Re¬
publican River and its tributaries. They
have designated it as Nebraska’s problem
No. 1. That is indeed not an exagger¬
ation.
Also every year since 1935, a portion
of the Republican River Basin has suf¬
fered from floods, bank erosion and oth¬
er like problems have been more serious
because of the damage to the channel by
reason of the 1935 flood.
A year or two ago, I was visiting with
a farmer whose land was adjacent to
the Republican River. He asked me to
come see it. When we were yet some
distance from the river, we stopped to
listen. You could hear his farm falling
into the river — fine, rich, black soil be¬
ing washed away because of an uncon¬
quered flood problem.
The 1938 Flood Control Act carried no
authorization for the Republican River
which would affect that portion of the
river which suffered most severely in the
1935 flood. It did authorize a large res¬
ervoir costing in excess of $20,000,000
near the mouth of the Republican River
at Milford, Kans. That reservoir has
never been constructed and in a subse¬
quent review of the flood-control plans
for the Kansas River system of which the
Republican is a part, the Army engineers
determined that a site in Harlan County,
Nebr., approximately 3 miles east of Re¬
publican City, would be a better site for
an on-river dam on the Republican River
than at Milford. The Chief of Engineers,
therefore, recommended construction of
the Harlan County Dam with a then-es¬
timated reservoir capacity of 1,008,000
acre-feet. This would provide practi¬
cally the same amount of flood protection
for the Kansas cities as would the reser¬
voir at Milford. In addition, it would
bring flood protection to four cities in
Nebraska and considerable territory in
Kansas, which the Milford Reservoir
would not have protected. This Harlan
County Dam and reservoir would have
also provided water for irrigation over a
considerable territory in Nebraska and
in Kansas. We needed the irrigation
and this added water would mean In¬
creased prosperity throughout a great
portion of the Republican Valley Basin.
In 1940, there was no general Flood
Control Act. The Harlan County Dam
was authorized in the act of 1941. The
Committee on Flood Control of the
House of Representatives reported out
an omnibus bill which carried an item
approving the plans for the Harlan
County Dam and authorizing a further
$7,000,000 for the Missouri Basin, which
was to be earmarked for the initial con¬
struction of the dam in Harlan County.
On two different occasions, the Congress
has appropriated money for the prepara¬
tion of the detailed plans for this dam in
Harlan County.
Because of the stoppage of all flood-
control work by reason of the war, no
actual construction has been started at
this site. It is safe to assume, however,
that had it not been for the war, Harlan
County Dam would now be under con¬
struction. The so-called Pick plan for
the development of the entire Missouri
River Basin reiterates the Army’s inten¬
tion to build Harlan County Dam. In
fact, it is one of the principal reservoirs
in the greater plan.
The people of Nebra.ska, and particu¬
larly the Republican Valley, were glad
when the Army engineers recommended
the Harlan County Dam. That did not
solve the entu’e problem. It did not give
flood protection on any of the tributaries
of the Republican River nor on the main
stream west of the reservoir site.
Following the announcement in 1940
of the recommendation of the Army en¬
gineers to build the Harlan County Dam,
I requested the assistance of the Office of
the Chief of Engineers in the preparation
of a resolution which would call for fur¬
ther studies west of the Harlan County
Dam without in any way prejudicing or
interfering with the plans to build the
Harlar^, County Dam. As a result, I in¬
troduced the following resolution, which
was duly approved by the Committee on
Flood Control of the House of Represent¬
atives:
RESOLUTION BY REPRESENTATIVE CARL T. CURTIS,
OP NEBRASKA
Resolved by the Committee on Flood Con¬
trol of the House of Representatives of the
United States, That the Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors, created under the
provisions of the River and Harbor Act ap¬
proved June 13. 1902. be, and is hereby, re¬
quested to review the report on the Kansas
River and tributaries contained in House
Document No. 195, Seventy-third Congress,
second session, with a view to determining
whether any modifications of the recommen¬
dations contained therein are desirable at the
present time with respect to the Republican
River and its tributaries west of the Harlan
County Dam site.
The so-called Pick plan, which the bill
now before the Congress adopts and ap¬
proves, carries the recommendations of the
Army arising out of that resurvey of the
west end of the Republican River and its
tributaries. The Pick plan recommends
five multiple purpose reservoirs on the upper
Republican River and tributaries in addi¬
tion, of course, to the Harlan County res¬
ervoir.
The reservoirs located on the tributaries
of the Republican River, upstream of the
Harlan County dam site, are the Medicine
Creek Reservoir on a stream of the same
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
4217
name. Red Willow Reservoir on Red Willow
Creek, Enders Reservoir on Frenchman
Creek, Beecher Island Reservoir on the
Arikaree River, and Hale Reservoir on the
South Fork of the Republican River. These
reservoirs are proposed for multiple-purpose
use. In addition to the capacity required
for flood control, storage capacity would be
available for storing excess water for con¬
servation purposes, principally irrigation.
No definite capacities for the reservoirs or
allocations of water to separate uses have
been assigned at this time. Studies of these
factors by both the War Department and
the Bureau of Reclamation are still in
progress.
The approximate heights and tentative
gross storage capacities of the reservoirs are
as follows:
.\pproxi-
mate
height
(feet)
Approxi¬
mate
gross
storage
(acre-feet)
Mediwne Creek _
85
57, 900
40, 800
Ked Willow _
87
Birders _ _
117
93; 200
72,200
96,400
Ueeeher Island _ _
120
Hale . . —
SO
The proposed reservoirs would control
all floods on these tributaries originating
above the dam site. They would sup¬
plement the Harlan County Reservoir
in providing complete control of the
largest flood of record at the Harlan
County site, and would reduce Kansas
River and some Missouri River floods.
The irrigable lands have not been de¬
fined, pending final studies by the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation. Tentative ca¬
pacities for conservation use were based
on available data on irrigable areas
downstream from the dam site and
studies of run-off of the various streams
at the dam site.
The proposed plan is subject to modi¬
fication as conditions warrant or as a
result of further studies now being pros¬
ecuted and to be prosecuted in the future.
If an alternate site for a reservoir would
be more desirable from a conservation
standpoint and provide essentially the
same control of floods, and be as feasible
from an engineering standpoint, the lo¬
cation of the reservoir could be changed.
I am not unmindful of the very fine
work that the Bureau of Reclamation
has done in the arid and semiarid West.
I have always supported the Bureau of
Reclamation and I expect to continue to
do so. We hope that out of these plans
for multiple-purpose reservoirs in the
Republican Valley that the Bureau will
be able to bring water to just as many
farms as it is possible to do. The Bu¬
reau of Reclamation has been studying
and surveying the Republican Valley.
They have issued a report on the Re¬
publican Valley which contains many fine
things. It is the belief of both the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation and the Army engi¬
neers that the plans of both the Army
and the Bureau for the Republican Val¬
ley can be correlated to the end that the
greatest amount of good can come to the
greatest number of people.
We have two great problems in the
Republican Valley, to wit: Drought and
floods. Both problems must be solved.
In the letter of H. W. Bashore, Commis¬
sioner of the Bureau of Reclamation,
bearing date of December 17, 1943, at¬
tached to and made a part of House
Document 475, the Bureau agrees that
the authorized and proposed reservoirs
on the Republican River would provide
adequate flood control in that area.
In connection with the working to¬
gether of the Army engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation to conquer the
problems of drought, and flood in the
Republican Valley, I wish to quote from
the hearings before our committee, as
follows :
Mr. Curtis. And as you told the chairman,
you recognized the need for irrigation in
that territory that will be served by that
(Harlan County) dam, and which will be
Integrated into your plan?
Colonel Rebee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Now, in reference to the five
additional dams above the Harlan County
Dam on the Republican River, is there a
flood problem there?
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir; there is a real flood
problem there.
Mr. Curtis. In their major flood of 1935,
where did the loss of life occur, generally;
east or west of Harlan County?
Colonel Reber. Generally, in a great
measure, above the Harlan County Dam.
Mr. Curtis. And to take care of that loss
of life and property — and incidentally, the
loss of life exceeded 100 — is the purpose of
your proposed 5 dams that you have enu¬
merated.
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir; plus water for
reclamation purposes.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. Now, it is also true that
the rainfall in that area is not adequate for
the best farming without irrigation; is that
not true?
Colonel Reber. I believe that is correct,
sir.
Mr. Curtis. The soil is good and irriga¬
tion farming is successfully accomplished
in that general area.
Colonel Reber. From what I have seen —
and I am not an expert on soil, sir — but from
what I have seen that is generally so ac¬
cepted.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. Now, these five tributary
dams on the Republican, like the Harlan
County Dam, will be so constructed and
planned to provide for the greatest amount
of Irrigation possible.
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir. The plan is flex¬
ible and subject to change, and is being
studied concurrently by both the Bureau of
Reclamation and ourselves.
Mr. Curtts. And that cooperation with the
Bureau, we can expect that not only in
planning but in construction and in opera¬
tion.
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir.
» * ■ ♦ • •
Mr. Curtis. Now, this entire Missouri River
Basin plan runs into considerable money,
and, as the report states, it hS-s about four
phases in it; is that not true?
Colonel Reber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Is it anticipated that it would
take a number of years to complete all of
that?
Colonel Reber. Very definitely.
Mr. Curtis. Now, suppose that In view of
the fact that it is going to take many years,
that some other agency, or specifically the
Bureau of Reclamation, would be in a posi¬
tion and ready and willing to start to build
one of the smaller dams on the upstream of
the Republican before it was reached by the
War Department, would the approval of this
basin report prevent it from happening?
Colonel Reber. No, sir; in no way.
The report of the Army engineers, as
embodied in House Document 475, which
has been referred to as the Pick plan,
is submitted by the Army as a flexible
plan, designed with the thought that all
problems, controversies, and differencies
among localities, agencies, and indi¬
viduals cannot be solved in advance, that
by cooperation and coordination of effort
between the agencies, needed changes
can be made in the future.
In that connection, I wish to again
quote from the hearings before our com¬
mittee, from the testimony of the Com¬
missioner of Reclamation, Mr. Bashore,
which is as follows:
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Bashore, the problem of
flood control in a region all of which has
ample rainfall is a problem that is ordinarily
not referred to the Bureau of Reclamation;
is that not true?
Mr. Bashore. That is right. Where it is
east of the one-hundredth meridian.
Mr. Curtis. And the major portion of your
work heretofore has been in the extreme arid
and at least semiarid regions, has it not?
Mr. Bashore. That is right, sir. That is
the only authorization we have.
Mr. Curtts. And while the problem of flood
control exists there, the major problem
usually is to provide water for agriculture
and domestic purposes; is that right?
Mr. Bashore. Yes; that is the major prob¬
lem.
Mr. Curtis. Now, in the Missouri River
Basin you have a merger of those two areas —
( 1 ) where there is ample rainfall and no need
or desire for irrigation and still a flood-
control problem, and then (2) it runs into
the area of arid and semiarid regions where
the need is great for irrigation; is that not
true?
Mr. Bashore. That is true, sir.
Mr. Curtis. Do you feel that such an area
can be continued to be handled by the two
separate agencies through the means of co¬
operating together, or what is your idea on
that? Do you think the Missouri River Basin
should be handled to the exclusion of one
agency or the other?
Mr. Bashore. No; I do not. I think it
should be handled by the two agencies.
Mr. Curtis. It is sort of a twilight zone
between the two problems in its extreme, is
it not?
Mr. Bashore. That is right.
On May 1 the Bureau of Reclamation
submitted to the President their report
on the conservation, control, and use of
the water resources of the Missouri River
Basin. This report deals with the irri¬
gation possibilities and carries proposals
for the Republican River, as well as all
the other tributaries of the Missouri
River. This report has now been released
and it is being printed as Senate Docu¬
ment 191, Seventy-eighth Congress, sec¬
ond session. As stated previous in my
remarks, that report contains many fine
things for the Great Plains country.
I wish particularly to call attention to
a paragraph in the letter of the Secretary
of the Interior to the President of the
United States, bearing date of May 1,
1944, which was the letter of transmittal
of the report to the President. The
paragraph I refer to is as follows:
The construction proposed in this report
would be complementary, for the most part,
to that recently suggested by the Secretary
of War for flood control on the Missouri
River. The two plans, while not Identical,
apparently can be successfully coordinated.
The letter from the Bureau of the
Budget, which is a part of House Docu¬
ment 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, sec-
4218
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
ond session, on the so-called Pick plan,
suggested that the Pick plan be delayed
and that action be taken later. However,
I wish to point out a more recent state¬
ment of the Director of the Budget. In
a letter from Mr. Harold D. Smith, Direc¬
tor of the Budget, to the gentleman from
Mississippi, Chairman Will M. Whit¬
tington, of the Committee on Flood Con¬
trol, dated April 27, 1944, Mr. Smith
said:
My letters of February 16, 1944, to tbe Sec¬
retary of War and to Representative McCor¬
mack, both of which I understand were con¬
sidered by your committee, express my views
on the Missouri River project which is in¬
cluded in the bill on page 12, line 9. While I
am sorry to learn that the committee has
deemed it advisable to include these projects,
I presume that the opening language of sec¬
tion 7 will allow suiBcient time before the
actual initiation of construction on any of
the projects to permit completion of the
necessary related investigations and initia¬
tion of any supplemental legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make my po¬
sition clear. The thing I desire most is
a construction program on our rivers
which will best serve the people of Ne¬
braska. I want the people of eastern
Nebraska to be protected from the devas¬
tating floods on the Missouri River. I
want the people in the Republican Val¬
ley to have a development program that
will overcome their two great problems,
to wit, floods and drought.
I sincerely hope that all Government
agencies can and will work together so
that soon after the war, the program of
flood control and irrigation can become a
reality and serve the greatest number of
people possible.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of
the Missouri River plan and of the entire
omnibus flood-control bill now before
us — H. R. 4485. It is not a perfect bill,
but it is a good bill. It calls for public
works which are greatly needed and, in
my opinion, are for the public good.
(Mr. CURTIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his own
remarks in the Record.)
Mr. CHENOWETH. Will the gentle¬
man yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Colorado.
Mr. CHENOWETH. The gentleman
from Nebraska is a recognized authority
on irrigation law. He comes from an ir¬
rigation State. I would like to ask a
Question or two in order to clear up a
couple of paragraphs here. The first is
in respect to section 4 where the Secre¬
tary of War is authorized to sell surplus
water. What is the gentleman’s obser¬
vation as to surplus water? In our area
all water has been appropriated, includ¬
ing floodwaters. They will be tem¬
porarily captured and placed in reserve,
but would not be subject to sale. They
belong to the appropriators who have
already complied with statutes in ap¬
propriating it.
Mr. CURTIS. It would be my opinion
that water appropriated for irrigation is
not surplus water. It is further my
opinion that section 4 does not deal with
irrigation. It means the sale of water
for other pm-poses, principally to munici¬
palities.
I call attention to the fact that there
is a specific section dealing with irriga¬
tion regulations and that is section 6
which is a later section in the bill. This
would indicate to me that section 4 would
not be controlling in reference to irriga¬
tion waters.
Mr. CHENOWETH. The reason I
asked is this : The gentleman knows there
has been some diffgrence of opinion as to
Federal and State rights in the control
of water. The States of Nebraska and
Colorado have been involved in some liti¬
gation over water flowing in interstate
streams. The State of Colorado, along
with other irrigation States, is jealous to
preserve the doctrine of State rights in
the control of their water. These appro¬
priators have gone into State courts and
have appropriated this water, including
the floodwaters. The gentleman does
not contend, and it is not the attitude of
his committee, that that water is subject
to sale?
Mr. CURTIS. Not under section 4; no.
I think the gentleman will agree with
me that the Bureau of Reclamation is
distinctly a western institution. The Bu¬
reau of Reclamation recognizes the prin¬
ciple of the consumptive and beneficial
use of water and of the water user. The
thing that we have done in this bill' is
to state that in any reservoir where there
is storage space available for Irrigating
farm lands that the regulation of that
shall be turned over to the Bureau of
Reclamation, which is a concession on
the part of the Army. It is a definite gain
on the part of the Bureau, and I be¬
lieve the Bureau of Reclamation can be
trusted to recognize both State rights and
the individual rights of the owners of the
water.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Would the gen¬
tleman say that any clarifying language
is needed in section 4 to establish the
doctrine which he has announced here
In making a distinction as to the western
users of water where the doctrine of ap¬
propriation exists, that does not prevail
in the East?
Mr. CURTIS. The committee worked
on this language. It may be that we
did not use the choicest words there are
in the dictionary. May I ask the chair¬
man of the committee if he will not agree
with me in this statement in order that
we might show legislative intent, that it
was not our intention to include the sale
of water for irrigation purposes imder
section 4, that that dealt with other uses
of water?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Absolutely; and
I may say, furthermore, as the gentleman
has already stated, trader the language
used, and the intent of the committee,
there is no effort made for the curtail¬
ment of water there for Irrigation. My
recollection is that under the reclama¬
tion acts, and in the distribution of water
under those acts, the Secretary of the
Interior has the power to do in reclama¬
tions districts just what the Chief of
Engineers would have to power to do hi
reservoir districts. This is to make com¬
parable the powers exercised by the Di¬
rector of Reclamation and the engineers,
and would apply only to waters that were
surplus and not needed for irrigation or
other purposes.
Mr. CASE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CJURTIS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE. It seems to me that the
interpretation feared by the gentleman
from Colorado is prevented by the pre¬
cise language of section 6 which says
that where water can be consistently
used for reclamation of arid lands it
shall be the duty of the Secretary of the
Interior to prescribe regulations, and so
forth. In other words, where reclama¬
tion of arid lands is concerned, section 6
precisely makes it the duty of the Sec¬
retary of the Interior and takes it away
from the Secretary of War.
Mr. CURTIS. May I add that as long
as we have federally constructed reser¬
voirs there will be Federal control. We
have stated in this bill that control
with reference to the available space for
irrigation water shall be exercised by
the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe
that the Bureau of Reclamation, being
a western agency, being committed to
the doctrine of consumptive and benefi¬
cial use of water, and in view of its past
record covering protection of State rights
and the protection of the water rights
of the individual, will exercise its au¬
thority judicially and that that is the
very best we can do.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the gentle¬
man from Nebraska will yield further,
because i think there should not be any
uncertainty, in addition to his state¬
ment and in addition to the suggestion
made by the gentleman from South Da¬
kota that this is not applicable to irriga¬
tion, it would be well to keep in mind the
fundamental purpose of this provision.
If there is a municipality that wants
water for human consumption, that mu¬
nicipality can pay the cost of raising that
reseiwoir in order to provide that addi¬
tional water. Of course, that puts a
burden on the municipality or the local
interest that they are frequently unable
to bear. In order to provide for human
consumption in these projects that are
primarily flood control, and to eliminate
the diffculty that obtains in reference
to the inability of the local interest to
supply the money, this provision is put
in. I think there need not be any fear
that the intent of the committee as well
as the language of the bill would not
make it applicable to irrigation. If it
were, irrigation would be disposed of by
the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Do I understand
the provisions of section 6 are retro¬
active to include projects which have now
been constructed and completed? Does
this change existing law with reference
to projects already in operation? The
word “hereafter” is used to start the
paragraph and I am not clear as to what
the intent of the paragraph is.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jen¬
kins] such time as he may desire.
(Mr. JENKINS asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks in the
RecoIid.)
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, 1 wish
at the outset to compliment the chair-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
man of the Flood Control Committee of
the House because he is deserving of a
compliment for the splendid manner in
which he has conducted the affairs of
his committee ever since he has been its
chairman.
When I came to Congress the Flood
Control Committee' was a new committee
and was struggling for its existence. In
the early days this committee clashed
quite frequently with the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors over matters of ju¬
risdiction of legislation. The Rivers and
Harbors Committee is one of the older
committees of the House and most of
the legislation that is now considered by
the Flood Control Committee was for¬
merly considered by the Rivers and Har¬
bors Committee. The control of the
rivers and harbors of the Nation by the
Government has been increasing in
many ways. Because of this increase of
business and increase of activities the
work of both of these committees has in¬
creased very much in the last 20 years.
The gentleman from Mississippi the
chairman of the Flood Control Commit¬
tee [Mr. Whittington], by his ability
and industry, was able to compose the
differences of jurisdiction with the result
that he now has a committee that does a
great amount of work and a committee
that has the confidence and respect of
the House.
I expect to support this legislation for
several reasons. One reason is that in
our post-war activities we will be looking
for public projects of worth and merit
which will give employment to idle men
and at the same time which will benefit
future conditions. The W. P. A., al¬
though a worth-while institution in some
respects, was frequently called upon to
do unnecessary work which had little if
any permanent value. Most of the proj¬
ects named in this bill will be of great
benefit to the community in which they
are located and also to the country
generally.
There are other reasons that I can
assign why I should support this legis¬
lation. I hope that when the time comes
to construct these projects that the most
worthy projects wiJ be taken first and
that the least worthy projects will be
taken last. I feel sure that the Army
will not permit money to be wasted on
unnecessary projects and I also have
confidence in our Appropriation Com¬
mittee that that Committee will not
recommend appropriations for useless
projects.
There is one project in this bill that
will be of great benefit to the State of
Ohio and to a portion of the district
I have the honor to represent. I refer to
the Burr-Oak Dam project.
While the Burr-Oak Dam project in
this legislation calls for an authoriza¬
tion of $400,000 on the part of the Gov¬
ernment, the amount to be supplied by
local contribution is $295,000. The
Government expenditure will be justi¬
fied by the fact that this project is a
flood-control project. There is no navi¬
gation considered in this project. The
expenditure by the local authorities of
$295,000 will be justified by the benefit
that this lake, which is to be constructed
by reason of the construction of a dam,
will furnish a water supply for that com¬
munity. Heretofore as was brought out
in the hearings there has been a great
dearth of water in that section at cer¬
tain seasons of the year. Some mines
located in that section have been com¬
pelled to haul water in railroad tank
cars in dry seasons. It is intended that
this water supply will relieve that situa¬
tion and that it will also benefit the com¬
munity in many other ways.
As I have heretofore stated, I hope this
legislation passes the House.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Con¬
necticut [Mr. Miller].
EMi’. MILLER of Connecticut addressed
the Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from Ver¬
mont [Mr. Plumley].
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, the
treatment accorded me by the Commit¬
tee on Flood Control was most gracious,
although I was viewed with some suspi¬
cion, if not with alarm, and was more or
less persona non grata because of cer¬
tain ideas I entertain with respect to
matters in hand. The chairman and the
ranking member are my personal friends
of long intimacies and some battles in
which we have joined.
I dislike, therefore, to have to take a
position in disagreement with my col¬
league the gentleman from Massachu¬
setts [Mr. Clason], for whom I have
admiration and respect, but I have to,
and so I am opposed to the bill as it
stands. There is no man more intel¬
lectual nor more deliberately able to sus¬
tain his position than the chairman.
That is what I am up against. I am
nevertheless against the governmental
policy under and by virtue of which this
law, by virtue of the bill under consid¬
eration, will operate. I am opposed to
totalitarianism. Really, I doubt if my
friends know how far they have gone.
As for me, I do not believe the Federal
Government should have undertaken or
should continue to undertake to cen¬
tralize in itself the control of matters,
if and when and because the States by
compacts entered into between and
among themselves have demonstrated
they can satisfactorily control and di¬
rect the matters which are intimately
and principally their own concern. Dis¬
agreement makes horse races, they say.
Mr. Chairman, despite any suggestion
to the contrary, I am for flood control.
So are the people whom I have the
honor to represent, uncontrovertibly, as
evidenced by the compacts which have
heretofore been entered into by them.
They, the people, are even more in¬
terested and concerned than I am, if
possible, which I deny, because they have
been the victims, as I have been, of the
lack of the very thing, protection, which
ought to be provided against a flood and
which was attempted to be provided by a
program of compacts which the New
England States entered into, which was
disregarded. Your turn will be next.
I am opposed to the policy and the pro¬
gram evidenced by this bill which as¬
sumes to disregard my area, you will be
4219
next, and to ' try to centralize and to
federalize and to control the rain drops,
the fog, and the dew. This administra¬
tion overleaps itself in its vaulting ambi¬
tion to socialize, to wreck individualism,
free enterprise, and free government by
the enactment of legislation in disregard
of what the States or the people may do
to save themselves.
As an American I do not approve the
idea or the theory that the Federal Gov¬
ernment should undertake to control
those things so certainly, completely, and
intimately th-; concern of the people of
the States as are the air and the land and
the water, till the people show incompe¬
tency to take care of themselves. If we
are to remain a democracy, the Federal
Government should neither offer help,
nor undertake to control the matters pe¬
culiarly the people’s rights, unless and
until the people have demonstrated their
inability so to do or have exhausted every
method in their own interest and behalf,
for any other program spells the end of
this democracy of Jefferson. Else we
are an aristocratic autocracy of totali¬
tarian puppets.
So far as flood control is concerned, it
has been well said that our attempts,
centralized and federalized, to try to beat
nature and nature’s god, are foolishly
futile. God save us for the day is at
hand, based on our own greed and lust
for temporary power and to our own dis¬
honor.
After all these years of experimenta¬
tion we are realizing at great cost what
we have done to this great country of
ours. 'We are now undertaking to stop
our damnable work by installing dams
to catch dirt and silt in order to make
deserts, to stop floods. How silly.
■What a joke. It is a most asinine prop¬
osition. We pay the bills. It involves
the spending of more millions, amount¬
ing to trillions in the end, the penalty
we pay for our shortsightedness, the cost
of which cannot be comprehended by
anybody unless possessed of an astro¬
nomical mind. Why continue to be so
foolish? Why do we go haywire when
a little common sense would salt and
savor the salad. Does not somebody
have it, or do votes for reelection count
so much against your self respect? You
will have to live with yourself forever.
What an awful thing to contemplate in
view of your votes for votes. God save
the State.
Of course, we should have started long
ago to stop denuding and stripping our
forests, making the Dust Bowl what it
was and will be again if the greed of
man controls. You cannot beat
God. God knows you cannot stop floods
by dams — you cannot beat Nature or Na¬
ture’s God, no matter how smart you are.
They tell me that even today the floods
which are covering this country are
chargeable more to the narrowing of
channels by the initiation of Army
engineers and to the building of dam.s
and dikes by men so foolish as we are
to think we can correct our fundamen¬
tal error than to anything else except
the original proposition that man can
stop God. How foolish and what an ex¬
pense!
4220
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 8
The fact is that those wise persons
who favored and fathered flood control,
as such, never anticipated nor contem¬
plated that the octopian tentacles of
a Federal Government would ever be
permitted to wind themselves about and
be permitted to attempt to choke the
life out of the States, which are the
people. Nevertheless, whether the peo¬
ple know it or realize it or not, that day
is here. It has happened and is glori¬
fied.
The States of Massachusetts, Vermont,
New Hampshire, and Connecticut once
upon a time entered into a satisfac¬
tory and suflttcient compact with respect
to flood control to conserve, preserve, and
save themselves.
The legislatures of the several States
ratified that compact. The people un¬
dertook to raise the revenue to cover the
expenses involved in an effort to accom¬
plish flood control by taxing themselves.
The compact was submitted to the
Senate of the United States. It declined
to recognize it or the right of the States
to legislate in their own interests, not¬
withstanding the fact that the States
had entered into this compact and that
the people through their legislatures had
spoken. God save liberty.
It was an outrageous, high-handed act,
indefensible and un-American, if I may
use that word respectfully, this crucifl-
cation of the States, for it was born
of a snap political partisan trick, be¬
neath the dignity of those who offered
the amendment to the bill on the floor
of that august tribunal at the other
end of this corridor. It was done in the
orgy of the heyday of those who, in¬
toxicated by an exaggerated idea of their
own magnitude and political power, were
about, they thought, to take over the
world, everything that is on top of or
imder the gi’ound, the fish in the seas,
and the fowls of the air. And every¬
thing else mentioned in Genesis.
Gradually, slowly, but eventually, the
people will undertake to recapture all
those things which Congress as a rubber
stamp gave away foolishly and that the
people who think this is a good Govern¬
ment to live in so long as they can live
off it were willing to have given away.
It is about time to stop that program be¬
fore there is nothing left.
This compact between these several
New England States, which followed the
statute as to how a compact should be
made and entered into and how it should
be submitted, was agreed to. Some of
these gentlemen around here from these
several States adjoining mine were mem¬
bers of the legislatures of their several
States at the time they sought to save
States’ rights. Special sessions of those
legislatures were called to consider this
compact. The State of Massachusetts
and others held special sessions, if I am
not incorrect. I have forgotten what
the name is that they have for that kind
of a special session — in Massachusetts,
emergent, I think — but my attention was
attracted to it at one time. Anyway, it
was an emergency session, so called by
the Governor, to consider this compact.
The compact to prevent floods was omni¬
present and important there as else¬
where.
We had all agreed to care for the whole
situation as far as the New England area
was concerned. We did not ask the
Federal Government to intervene. We
were ready to pay the price, the bills;
offered to do it; the bids were allotted.
The amounts which the several States
should pay were apportioned to the sev¬
eral States. Those compacts were signed
by the officials of the several States and
transmitted to Congress. The Congress
eventually absolutely ignored the right
of the States to have anything to say
about their own business, or the right
of the people who elect the Members of
Congress, who were ready to pay the bill
to take care of an opportunity to pre¬
serve to them their life, liberty, prop¬
erty, and pursuit of happiness. What a
high-handed procedure.
On the afternoon of July 6, 1937 —
Says the Congressional Record of June
9, 1938—
in the office of the Governor of the great
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the au¬
thorized representatives of four sovereign
States met for the purpose of executing on
behalf of their respective States compacts
providing for the control of destructive flood-
waters of two of the largest river systems
of the New England States. Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont
had reached a satisfactory agreement re¬
specting the basin of the Connecticut River,
a problem common to the four States; while
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, who, for
geographical reasons, were the only States
interested, had similarly solved the ques¬
tion of flood control on the Merrimack.
It was in many respects a historic occasion.
Some very distinguished gentlemen,
one or two of whom are here before me
today, were present to deny it.
Four highly individualistic States, each
justly Jealous of its own sovereignty, had,
nevertheless, composed any differences of
opinion which might otherwise have been
fatal to such a program, and the way was
clear, but for the mere matter of approval
by Congress —
Which it never had.
Since my friend and colleague from
Massachusetts [Mr. Clason] was present
at that meeting — I later learned he was
not present at that meeting, yet was the
godfather, as appears from the record —
and still was an interested progenitor and
coparent of the compacts, he can take no
exception to my insistence that the pro¬
gram with respect to the Williamsville
Dam should be di^ensed with, and post¬
poned for now. How do we know what a
low dam means? Strike out “high”?
What is “low”?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
will the -gentleman yield?
Mr. PLUMLEY. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I value the
gentleman’s opinion. Let me ask him
this question. If we eliminate the re¬
striction contained in this bill, would it
not militate against the very view on
which the gentleman is insisting, because
under the language of 1938 it might be
maintained that the Chief of Engineers
had the right to build a high dam, and
we have undertaken to protect Vermont
by saying that he shall not be permitted
to construct a high dam.
Mr. PLUMLEY. I am going to try to
undertake to take all the worry out of
the gentleman’s mind tomorrow by strik¬
ing out that word “high.” Then it will
leave it that under this bill as written
they cannot do anything unless we know
what is meant by striking out “high.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That would
stymie the whole program.
Mr. PLUMLEY. No. I have been asked
to offer an amendment to strike all after
the word “eleven” to the word “nineteen,”
but I have declined to do that because
I said I will not be a party to stymieing
the whole program in the valley. I will,
however, be a party to and I do insist
that by the very language of this bill
which you have brought in here you have
shown no emergency, no occasion, no
necessity for action at present. You will
strike out “high,” you say. I ask you
what is “low.” Therefore, until further
consideration may be given this matter
of so great importance to these States,
wliich were ready and willing to and did
enter into a compact, no damage can be
done to anybody by striking out that
word “high” until I know from the engi¬
neers, to whom the Congress would dele¬
gate its authority, what it will do if per¬
mitted to exercise the authority hereto¬
fore granted. We are for flood control.
We have proved it. We have agreed to it.
That does not mean that we propose to
be drowned, devastated, or destroyed by
delegated authority. I know you too well
to think you would wish us to buy a “pig
in a poke.” I shrll have to oppose the
generality on the proposition, however
generous it may appear to be.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PLUMLEY. I yield.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Then would it
be necessary if we eliminate this limi¬
tation in the bill?
Mr. PLUMLEY. If you strike out that
word “high.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That would
eliminate the reconstruction altogether.
That would leave the law just as it is.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Not as I have written
my amendment, I hope.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PLUMLEY. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Connecticut.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. I agree
with what the gentleman said as to the
desirability of adopting the compacts,
but as a practical matter we have not
been permitted to operate under the
compact. Congress refuses to ratify it.
The Supreme Court, which is the last
word, says the Federal Government has
the right to go into your State and mine
and to go into these dams and build
them if they want to. After doing so,
are you going to deny the people of that
locality in Vermont and Connecticut
whatever flood protection we can give
them? I hope the day comes when that
act is repealed.
Mr. PLUMLEY. That is right. Now
you have said it.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Where-
ever a river goes through State lands,
as long as every State on the river banks
is willing to sign the compact, they shall
have the right to do so if they want to
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
and the State that tries to stop them
shall be estopped.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Vermont has expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the gentleman from Massa¬
chusetts [Mr. Curley] 5 minutes.
Mr. CURLEY. Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the House, it was not my
purpose to enter into a discussion of this
bill, because a person coming from an
eastern city is not supposed to be familiar
with the problems of the West, which
afflict the entire country. But I will say
that journeying through Arkansas in
1928, I witnessed the ravages of a flood
in the Mississippi Valley. I saw houses
on stilts or logs or poles with all of the
top soil washed away and with nothing
but blue clay remaining for a distance
of more than 100 miles. I called a con¬
ference in 1930, composed of 22 leading
economists of Massachusetts, represent¬
ing 22 universities and colleges, to con¬
sider the problem of flood control and as
to how it affected the entire Nation. I
learned for the first time that the Mis¬
sissippi River with its tributaries affect
38 of the 48 States of the Union. It was
estimated by competent authorities that
the loss through soil erosion in a single
year represented an average of $250,000,-
000. I then learned that it would be
possible to effect a saving of $250,000,000
annually in the fuel supply of New Eng¬
land, providing there was adequate flood
control. So we made a recommendation
to one of the candidates for the Presi¬
dency in 1932 that he include in his pro¬
gram $2,000,000,000 for flood control in
the United States. I had occasion to
talk to the Tresident of the United States
some 8 months ago and I asked him how
he was getting along on the program and
was informed by him that we had al¬
ready expended about $3,500,000,000
upon the flood-control program and in
all probability it would represent an ex¬
penditure, before completion, of $5,000,-
000,000.
We can quibble as we see fit about in¬
terference with States’ rights or its ef¬
fect upon individual communities, but
the fact remains that there is no State
or group of States that would be willing
to undertake a capital expenditure of
$5,000,000,000 to settle a problem of this
character. When you stop and consider
the possibilities of adequate flood con¬
trol in the Mississippi Valley you have
some realization of the enormity of the
problem. You are actually giving the
United States of America a third coast
line, an interior coast line, if you will, by
controlling the flood waters in the Mis¬
sissippi Valley. We had an example re¬
cently within the last 2 years since our
participation in World War No. 2. They
constructed boats at Cleveland and sent
those boats down the Mississippi River on
their own power. They were destroyers
and submarines. The Mississippi River
had a mean depth of from 1 to 6 feet
when flood control started. I am in¬
formed by the engineers it now has a
depth of from 6 to 9 feet and within 10
years if the present liberal policy is pur¬
sued, it will have from 9 to 15 feet. We,
for many years, have followed the same
policies that have been in vogue in China
for more than 2,000 years along the
Yangtze Kiang and the Hwang Ho Riv¬
ers of building dikes whenever there was
a flood. Finally they got so they had to
build dikes 1,500 feet in height. The
flood waters came along and washed top¬
soil into the bed of the river. As the
bed of the river ascended it was neces¬
sary to raise the dikes. For the first
time in the history of fighting floods and
flood waters in America, we have adopted
a new system by the establishment of
these water reservoirs and these water
basins for the storage of flood waters in
time of flood.
By permitting the Mississippi River to
scour its own bed we do away with the
necessity for the erection of dikes and
we increase the depth of the river so as
to make it navigable its entire length.
Abraham Lincoln is authority for the
statement that no nation can exist one-
half slave and one-half free, and any in¬
dividual who has given any study to the
long, sad story of bank failures in the
agricultural sections and of almost an¬
nual floods in the Mississippi River area
must realize that this Nation can never
enjoy any measure of prosperity so long
as one-fourth of the entire Nation, rep¬
resented by the agriculturists, are walk¬
ing in the shadow of adversity. The pos¬
sibility, through the expenditure of
$5,000,000,000 for the development of an
inland empire in the heart of this Na¬
tion, is too important for any individual
to overlook.
PERIODS OP DEPRESSION
We have our periods of depression in
the world. Lloyd George is authority for
the statement that they had one in every
2y2-year period in the last hundred years
in Great Britain. We in America have
had one in about every 5-year period in
the last half century. In about every 2-
or 3-year period they have had an over¬
flow in the Mississippi Valley — an over¬
flow that could have been prevented
through a generous expenditure of public
money. When we realize that this one
great artery for transportation at the
lowest possible rate of freight of every
character — the Mississippi taps with
tributaries 38 States of the Union — we
have some realization of the importance
of that project to the entire Nation.
I would propose the expenditure of
$5,000,000,000 in the Mississippi area, the
creation of great reservoirs or water
basins to hold the supply in time of flood
and to release it in time of drought; the
creation of hydroelectric generating
plants at the entrance to those water
basins on the Mississippi, the Missouri,
the Arkansas, the Red, the Ohio, the Col¬
orado, and the other tributary branches;
the development and the manufacture of
that hydroelectric energy at less than
one-half a cent per kilowatt-hour and
its distribution at that price to the indi¬
vidual in that section of America and
the possibility of 12 months’ navigation
would do more to add to the prosperity
of the American farmer and every Amer¬
ican than any single investment that this
Nation of ours might make.
WHAT proposal WOULD MEAN
It would mean the absorption at the
present time and for the next 2 years of
4221
the basic materials iron, steel, cement;
of electrical energy-developing machin¬
ery; it would mean the Westinghouse,
the General Electric, and all the lead¬
ing electric companies here in the East
working on a 24-hour schedule for the
next 2 years. Through direct water
transportation, it would be possible to
invade the markets of the world that
America must develop for her existence.
The future of America lies in the in¬
vasion of the Orient — the markets of
India and China — and South America.
The continuous navigation of the Missis¬
sippi River, with a water freight rate of
30 to 40 cents a ton as against a rail rate
of $1.80 a ton, with direct water connec¬
tion, by way of the Panama Canal, to the
Orient and South America, would result
in creation of an inland waterway in the
heart of America.
It would add more to the prosperity
and wealth of the American Nation in
the next 25 years than the Louisiana
Purchase did since it was added to
America.
There is no reason why these great
opportunities, not only for the solution
of the present industrial problem but
the future prosperity of America, should
be permitted to lie idle.
NO TIME FOR HESITATION
We did not hesitate during the World
Wars to loan to the European nations,
and yet we hesitate when the welfare of
America is concerned. Thirty-eight
States of the Nation tapped by the Mis¬
sissippi and its tributaries: settlement of
the flood question.
The production from that wonderful
alluvial soil along the banks of the Mis¬
sissippi, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, Ar¬
kansas, and the Red; the possibility of
direct water communication. I confess
I never had any realization of how im¬
mense it was until we had a coal famine
here in 1915. Out in Pennsylvania every
time they get an accumulation of slag
and slate they arrange a strike and then
they unload the slag and slate on us for
coal — at $20 a ton as against the custo¬
mary price of $15 a ton. We had one
of these strikes in 1915 and the price of
coal advanced to about $18 a ton. Then
we received here for the first time coal
from Kentucky. It was not anthracite,
but it was a high-grade bituminous coal
with a low ash content but with a higher
heat unit than any anthracite we ever
used. Why do we not get it here all the
time? Because the freight rate from
Kentucky to Boston is $5.80 a ton. With
a water rate of 80 cents to $1 a ton, they
could undersell Pennsylvania anthracite
and then make more money upon the
coal handled than in any previous time
in the history of Kentucky.
The hauling of cotton and cereals over
the Rocky Mountains to Seattle, Port¬
land, Oreg., Los Angeles, and San Fran¬
cisco for shipment to the Orient when
the Mississippi and its tributaries affords
a direct route via the Panama Canal is
an indictment of our intelligence.
FAVORS $5,000,000,000 EXPENDITURES
I am in favor, although living in a
State far removed from the agricultural
regions, of the immediate expenditure by
the United States of America of $5,000.-
No. 81 - 7
4222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
000,000 to settle for all time the question
of flood control and make possible the
development at the lowest possible cost
of electrical energy; and to give America
control of the cheapest character of
water transportation; and to enhance
the value of our investment in the Pan¬
ama Canal ; and to develop in the heart of
America an inland empire, within the
territory of which every progressive, for¬
ward-looking leader of the industrial life
of the world would And it necessary
within 5 years to locate a plant and take
advantage of cheap water transportation
and the lowest electrical cost to be found
anywhere in the world.
The farmer’s problem is the problem
of every individual in America, and when
it is settled, in God’s name, let it be set¬
tled right.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CURLEY
received permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Massachusetts has ex¬
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. PLUM-
.LEY received permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl¬
vania [Mr. Wright] 7 minutes.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I am
very much impressed by the national
benefits that will accrue from the adop¬
tion of the act and the extension of the
present flood-control program, but I trust
I may be pardoned if I venture a refer¬
ence to its particular impact upon the
Upper Ohio River Basin, from which area
1 come, and a portion of which I have
the honor to represent.
As you all know, the Ohio Valley,
drained by the Allegheny and the Monon-
gahela and the Ohio Rivers and their
tributaries is one of the greatest indus¬
trial regions of the United States. I
do not think it would be possible for us
to carry on our great production pro¬
gram if we did not have the steel that
comes from the mills of Pittsburgh and
West Virginia, and Ohio. In 1936 and
1937, that entire region was inundated,
the commercial and manufacturing area
of Pittsburgh was completely under wa¬
ter, and industries farther down the
river in Ohio and West Virginia were
closed. Due to the topography of the
country the mills in Pittsburgh and in
the remainder of the valley, are con¬
structed at a very slight elevation above
the river banks. Since that time six
dams have been built above Pittsburgh,
on the tributaries of the Ohio River. In
1942, after we were in the war, it was
due to the construction of these six
dams that another flood was prevented in
Pittsburgh, in Ohio, down to Wheeling,
W. Va., tljat great industrial region,
which would otherwise have been put out
of operation. Had that occurred the
heaviest concentration of the steel in¬
dustry in the United States would have
been rendered largely useless during the
period of flood, and of the repair of the
flood's ravages, and vital supplies of steel
and its products would have been lost to
the United States.
These reservoirs, according to the in¬
formation I have, reduced the crest stage
at Pittsburgh by 3 feet and prevented
property damage estimated at over $15,-
000,000. In Ohio and West Virginia
property damage to the extent of $14,-
000,000 was likewise saved. These reser¬
voirs cost $38,250,000 and in 1 year they
prevented the occurrence of damage es¬
timated at $29,000,000, thus practically
paying in 1 year for their construction.
The present bill authorizes the appro¬
priation of a further sum of $70,000,000
for flood-control projects to be con¬
structed in the headwaters and tribu¬
taries of the Ohio River. There is one
in the Chadakoin River area in New
York. The Chadakoin River empties
into Conewango Creek, and finally finds
its way to the Alleghany and the Ohio.
There is a project erected on the Cheat
River in West Virginia which is estimated
by the engineers to reduce the flood
stages at Pittsburgh in the event of
any maximum flood of reasonable ex¬
pectancy, as much as an additional 1.4
feet.
There are also further improvements
in the Youghiogheny River Basin, which
now flows into the Monongahela and
thus into the Ohio, and improvements
near Latrobe, on the Loyalhanna Creek,
whose waters also find their way into
the Ohio. All of these undoubtedly will
have some additional effect on reducing
the flood stage at Pittsburgh and farther
down the valley. I do not believe in the
unreasonable or unwarranted extension
of Federal power and the deprivation of
the States of the power which they
rightfully should have. . But I cannot
possibly see how projects of this magni¬
tude, which involve not one, but many
States, can be at all handled by the
States in a practical manner. For exam¬
ple, two projects to which I have referred
which affect the entire Ohio Valley, orig¬
inate in its headwaters, one of them in
West Virginia, and the other in New
York. It would be obviously unfair to
ask the States which have no direct or
considerable benefit to be received from
these projects, where the projects are
for the benefit of States farther down
the river — indeed for the entire Ohio
Valley and for the ultimate benefit of
the Mississippi Valley — to be asked to
pay for such projects themselves. The
Federal Government cannot afford to
wait while the States join together in
some possible compact in order to per¬
form these public works which are for
the general and immediate interest of
the country at large.
I wish to compliment the committee
for their very painstaking and conscien¬
tious study of this great problem. I wish
also to compliment our very efficient of¬
fice of Army engineers. I think they are
doing a splendid service for the country,
I also suggest that projects such as have
been outlined here should be constructed
as one of our first post-war works.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman,
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I should like to
say that the so-called State-compact
theory of flood control failed because,
among other things, one State could
block it completely, and thus block flood
control throughout the Nation.
Mr. WRIGHT. I am thankful for the
gentleman’s observation. To me that is
obvious. This is a matter of national
magnitude, and I feel, must be handled
in a program with a national scope.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. CASE. Has the gentleman seen
the cartoon by Pitspatrick which ap¬
peared in the St. Louis Post Dispatch of
April 30, which merely shows a landscape
with a river starting as a trickle and
coming down in a terrible flood at
the bottom, with everything submerged
except the top of a telephone pole and
one lone citizen on the roof top of a
floating house, and below the cartoon
this caption; “While the States disagree
on a program”?
Mr. WRIGHT. I thank the gentle¬
man. The observation and the idea of
the cartoonist is relevant and very
pointed, and illustrates better than any¬
thing I can say"^ the inadequacy of State
action upon this matter.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex¬
pired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. WRIGHT
was granted permission to revise and ex¬
tend his remarks.)
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I jdeld
10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Ramey].
(By unanimous consent, Mr. RAMEY
was granted permission to revise and
.extend his remarks.)
j Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Chairman, about
I the only thing that gives me a feeling'
of comfort in regard to the message I
have is when I look at Watts’ painting of
Hope. There she sits at the apex of the
universe, playing on a harp of a thou¬
sand strings, all of which have been
broken save one. And I am strumming
on that one string.
This Congress, under Public Law No.
138, enacted legislation to provide for
emergency flood-control work made nec¬
essary by recent floods and for other
purposes. I find it applies to every place
but the vicinity of Toledo, Ohio, and the
Lake Erie region.
After our flood disaster of 1943, where
something like 300 people were made
homeless by the lake flowing over the
dikes, I was hopeful that emergency act
v/ould take care of us.
I was advised by the legal department
that it did not apply. It applied every¬
where but to us, but nothing for the fa¬
thers and mothers of the veterans in the
Lake Erie district. A flood only happens
in rivers and in certain geographical cen¬
ters. Sm’ely the Loan Disaster Corpora¬
tion would take care of us, they could
lend the money, but not for the building
of dikes. I was referred to Colonel
Goethals, who sent some Army engineers
there. They estimated that it would re¬
quire $110,000 to make these necessary
and urgent repairs and he approved it.
After the report was returned the legal
department said, “No. Public Law No.
138 does not take care of it.”
Then we received the usual word,
“refer, refer, refer.” Have any of you
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
4223
Members ever been referred? Most of
you went home during that recess period
of last summer but I remained on the
job here to take care of the flood suffer¬
ers. I was referred to this department,
that department, and the other depart¬
ment. With shoe leather worn out, I
walked, and walked, and was referred and
referred, and I heard other words, “over¬
all — broad view,” until I almost reached
the place where in my sleep I heard “If
pi equals X you extract the cube root and
then you get the philosophy that you are
not taken care of because you are a
minority man.”
So in distress I prayed, “God Almighty,
cannot the flood sufferers of our region
be taken care of? • Does it only go to the
rivers?”
This year my colleague in the Senate,
Senator Taft, introduced S. 1536, which
is now before the Senate Committee on
Commerce. I hope that something hap¬
pens there: one hearing has been held
on the bill, but there is delay. They
have suggested that perhaps it can be
passed and attached to this bill. In the
meantime, two other floods have oc¬
curred. Originally, the $110,000 would
have taken care of it. It was not done.
Another flood occurred that increased the
cost of needed repairs to $265,000, Just
the other day there was another flood.
Still they say it is not a flood. Plainly
a stitch in time would have saved nine.
What is a flood? The dictionary states
that it is “a body of water rising, swell¬
ing, and overflowing land not otherwise
so covered.” Anyway, the dikes went and
we have our floods.
The other day I talked to the man who
wants to be Governor of Ohio. He said:
“Congressman, don’t give up: be an opti¬
mist. My uncle, 98, recently married a
lady 96, and they are hunting for a home
located near a schoolhouse.”
I am in sadness, however. I voted for
nearly $2,000,000,000 to relieve suffering
in other lands: I voted for every measure
connected with the war effort. I ask
only a little bit, yet I am met with the
response : “It does not apply : it does not
apply.” I hope to offer an amendment
tomorrow. Will you help me? Will you
please have a heart and not use the words
“it does not apply”? In God’s name,
think of those men, most of them fathers
of soldiers, and their families that are
without homes. We have gone to the
Housing Authority. They will take care
of migrants, but if a person happens to
live along the shores of Lake Erie there
seemingly is no relief. Even if you have
no immediate interest in our troubles,
in God’s name, be just, be generous.
That is my message.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal¬
ance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Ohio yields back 4 minutes.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle¬
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Troutman].
Mr. TROUTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the
bill before the Committee authorizes the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control and
for other purposes. The enactment of
this bill will continue the national flood-
control policy and program initiated by
the act of 1936 and extended by subse¬
quent acts of Congress.
In approving the Flood Control Act of
1941, the President directed that no new
flood-control projects should be under¬
taken unless they were of direct im¬
portance to the defense of the Nation.
Since the declaration of war the de¬
mands of construction, and the shortage
of critical materials, equipment, and la¬
bor have forced the stoppage of numer¬
ous projects which could not command
sufficiently high priority ratings to secure
the materials needed for their construc¬
tion.
The present bill constitutes legislative
planning for post-war construction. We
already have an enormous backlog of
flood-control projects which have been
authorized in previous acts but which
have not been put into execution because
of the necessities of war.
The Congress and the country recog¬
nize flood disaster in this country as one
of the major problems affecting the wel¬
fare" and security of the entire Nation.
The enormous loss of life and property
caused by floods calls for some systematic
program of flood control. Scarcely any
section of our country has been immune
from these disasters. It is, therefore, es¬
sential to undertake the preparation of
detailed plans to cope with this great
force of Nature. From an economic
standpoint, a reserve of worth-while
projects which can be initiated immedi¬
ately following the war should provide a
great deal of employment for workers
made idle by the closing of war plants.
This bill includes many meritorious
flood-control improvements. The lives
and property of our citizens who live in
the fertile valleys of our rivers must be
protected. They must have a sense of se¬
curity if they are going to live in peace
and build permanent homes. Moreover,
the flood areas must be made so secure
from flood that industry will be willing to
venture into the area.
This bill contains additional authoriza¬
tions for some very necessary projects in
my home State of Pennsylvania. There
are many flood-control projects which
have already been authorized but which
have not been built, due to the stoppage
order of the Chief Executive. It cannot
be ui'ged too strenuously that many of
these projects should be in complete
readiness to be executed as soon as war
conditions permit. Many of these proj¬
ects are so essential that they should be
undertaken even before the cessation of
hostilities and just as soon as manpower
and materials are available. I refer par¬
ticularly to the project on the Susque¬
hanna River at Sunbury, Pa., which pro¬
vides for a system of levees and pumps
which will materially lessen the danger
of disastrous floods. The Sunbury area
is engaged in much war work and other
manufacturing activities and is an im¬
portant railway and transportation cen¬
ter as well. There are many other
worthwhile projects in the other river
valleys of the State which should be given
prompt attention. While the most re¬
cent devastating flood in the Susque¬
hanna River Valley occurred in 1936, yet
since that time floods, and the danger of
floods, have occurred quite frequently.
The great flood of 1936 throughout the
Susquehanna Basin caused damages esti¬
mated at $67,000,000. In the Ohio River
Basin, in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, flood-
control projects, already completed, have
reduced the crest stage by several feet.
The present bill calls for additional im¬
provements which should materially pro¬
tect the highly industrialized Pittsburgh
area. While the need for adequate flood
protection is widely recognized, yet there
is a constant danger of using flood con¬
trol as a guise for promoting projects for
other purposes. It has been the policy of
the Committee on Flood Control to rec¬
ommend only such projects as will pro¬
vide primarily for protection against
floods and the generation of electricity
and other purposes have been given sec¬
ondary consideration.
It should be the policy of Congress to
place each project under the test as to
whether or not the primary objective is
the control of floods. There is at least
one project in the bill which provides
for improvements which will have very
limited use in the control of floods but is
primarily a hydroelectric project. I re¬
fer particularly to the improvement in
the Youghiogheny River Basin. This
1 river traverses land underlaid with some
of the finest coal deposits in the world
and in this area electricity can be gen¬
erated by steam economically. It is
doubtful whether such an improvement,
involving such an enormous sum of pub¬
lic funds, should be authorized, particu¬
larly in a flood-control bill.
While we are almost unanimously com¬
mitted to the virtues of a flood-control
program, we should not let it become the
instrumentality by which Federal agen¬
cies assume control of water rights which
properly belong to the State and its citi¬
zens. Prior to 1933, Federal control ex¬
tended only to navigable waters actually
used in interstate commerce. A new test
of navigability, however, has been estab¬
lished in a series of recent cases. The
Court has ruled that an unnavigable por¬
tion of a stream and its unnavigable
tributaries may in law become navigable
because they maintain the navigability
of the lower portion. It should not be
forgotten that the primary rights in
water rests in the States, and while a
program of Federal aid in controlling
floodwaters is highly desirable, yet it
should not form the basis of a usurpation
of the rights of the several States. Fed¬
eral projects should only be undertaken
in complete cooperation with the State
and local governments. Too often has
the humitarian appeal for the control of
floods been used to camouflage the real
purpose of those who advocate a strong
centralization of powers in the Federal
Government.
While practically all of the projects in
the pending bill are primarily for flood
control and make the bill worthy of the
favorable consideration of the House,
nevertheless, it is imperative that due
caution be exercised so that no authoriza¬
tion shall include projects which are only
remotely connected with the subject of
flood control.
4224
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
(Mr. TROUTMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his own
remarks.)
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from North
Dakota.
(Mr. BURDICK asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his own
remarks.)
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I am
going to be one of the speakers who is
not for this bill. I have every respect
for the chairman who brought this legis¬
lation in and I am v/ith him on most
things, but because we are friends, be¬
cause I admire him, is no reason under
the sun why I should agree with him if
his philosophy and mine disagree. I
want to call your attention to a few of
the outstanding things that are going
to be done in this bill, and I am refer¬
ring to the rivers that have their sources
west of the 97th parallel.
This bill first authorizes a comprehen¬
sive scheme of improvements in the
Missouri River under the direction of the
SecretaiT of War. Second, it authorizes
the Secretary of War to construct and
maintain canals and takes possession —
I presume it could not mean anything
else — of the irrigation systems that we
now have working under Government
control in the Bureau of Reclamation.
Third, it authorizes the Secretary of War
to sell to States, municipalities, private
concerns, and individuals at such prices
and on such terms as it may deem rea¬
sonable — what are they going to sell back
to us? The water that we who live out
west of the 97th parallel thought we
had a right to use, water we thought God
Almighty put there for us to use. But
now we have got to turn it over to the
Government and buy it back. Fourth,
it provides that hereafter whenever in
the opinion of the Secretary of War any
dam or reservoir project operated under
his direction can be consistently used for
reclamation of arid lands it wiU be the
duty of the Secretary of the Interior to
prescribe the rules and regulations and
the price of water.
This comprehensive plan that was de¬
veloped on the Missouri River includes,
of course, flood control and navigation.
These in themselves, flood control and
navigation, are national in scope and fall
within the commerce clause of the Con¬
stitution. The matter of navigation is
one of Federal control. There is no
argument on that at all. But through
this Federal control of transportation
and flood control they have added on
these other elements in this bill.
I am against this bill as it now stands
and unless some very important amend¬
ments are made, I will vote “No” on final
passage.
Judge Stone has given the best analysis
of this bill that I have seen. He says :
1. It authorizes a comprehensive scheme
of improvements in the Missouri River, un¬
der the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers, not
only for Hood control and navigation, but for
irrigation, power development, and other pur¬
poses.
2. It authorizes the Secretary of War to
construct, maintain, and operate conserva¬
tion facilities at dams under the control of
the War Department. Section 3 gi'antlng
this authority seems to be broad enough to
permit the Corps of Engineers to construct,
maintain, and operate the necessary canals
and other facilities to utilize stored water for
irrigation purposes.
3. It authorizes the Secretary of War to
sell to States, municipalities, private con¬
cerns, or individuals, at such prices and on
such terms as he may deem reasonable for
domestic and industrial uses, surplus water
that may be available at any reservoir under
the control of the War Department; and pro¬
vides that all moneys received from such sales
shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts.
4. It provides that hereafter, whenever in
the opinion of the Secretary of War any dam
and reservoir project operated under his di¬
rection can be consistently used for rec¬
lamation of arid lands, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe reg¬
ulations for the use of the storage avail¬
able for such purposes and the operation of
any such project shall be in accordance with
such regulations. The same provision speci¬
fies such charges for the use of stored water,
as the Secretary of the Interior may deem
reasonable, the receipts therefrom to be de¬
posited into the Treasury of the United States
to the credit of miscellaneous receipts.
We have gotten along pretty well since
1902 — 42 years — under the reclamation
system that we have in the West that you
want to change today if you can do it;
but I intend to point out here before you
do it what is going to happen if this bill
passes.
If this bill passes you are going to wipe
out the Reclamation Bureau in just one
vote and hereafter all irrigation in the
West will be under the direct control of
the Army engineers. The Reclamation
Bureau has worked with the States; they
have worked with North Dakota and
other States; and the use of water is reg¬
ulated by the States. Many of you Mem¬
bers have been very jealous about the
encroachment of the Federal Govern¬
ment on States’ rights but here in one
vote you are going to wipe out all the
authority that the States ever had on the
question of the use of water and you are
going to lodge it right back with the Fed¬
eral Government under the pretense that
you are operating under the authority of
the commerce clause.
But you say, “We have amended it; we
have amended it so it will not do any
damage.” Let me read you the amend¬
ment:
Provided, That nothing in this act shall be
construed as creating below Sioux City any
demand upon the water resources of the Mis¬
souri River Basin above Sioux City in excess
of that now authorized by law.
Had you put an amendment in the
bill subjecting the use of this water for
navigation to the right of the States in
the arid West to use that water for irri¬
gation, or if you would put irrigation on
an equal level, it would have been at
least fair; but here you say they cannot
use any water except such as is author¬
ized by law. What law do you have
reference to? If it is a State law, that
is, of course, wiped out, because this is
a Federal law; in other words, what you
are doing here this afternoon and to¬
morrow is changing the entire system of
the United States and embarking the
Government on a new policy in the use
of water. It passes from State control,
from control of the Reclamation Bureau
into Federal control under the Army
engineers of the United States.
Judge Stone’s opinion on the effect of
this amendment seems too clear for
argument. It reads:
This amendment does not protect the ex¬
isting and potential \tses of water for irriga¬
tion, and does not clearly state the intention
of the Chief of Engineers. It can constitute
no reassurance whatsoever to residents in the
Upper Missouri Basin.
First. When it is said that by the author¬
ized words no demand for water is made “over
that now authorized by existing law,” the
question is asked, “What law?” Under the
theory of this authorization bill, the demand
for water for navigation and to carry out the
plan of the Corps of Engineers would be exer¬
cised under the commerce clause. This
means, then, that the paramount and con¬
trolling law would be the Federal Constitu¬
tion. It follows that in any case where there
is a conflict between the constitutional power
and the State laws the terra “existing law”
offers no protection to water rights for irriga¬
tion, domestic, and industrial purposes under
State laws.
Second. Existing law does not specifically
define the quantitative demands that may be
made upon water resources of the Missouri
Basin for present or future navigation proj¬
ects in any comprehensive plan.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield.
Mr. CASE. It seems to me that the
meaning of that amendment must be
considered in relation to its origin.
That proviso does not pertain to recap¬
ture for the States above Sioux City
water rights which had previously been
appropriated by law to use below Sioux
City. It does provide that nothing in
this act shall be construed to establish
any new rights for water used below
Sioux City beyond those that are now
authorized by law. As the debate on the
river and harbor bill clearly showed,
the uses of water below Sioux City that
are presently authorized by law are the
water required for a 6-foot channel and
the Fort Peck Reservoir. These are
already established by law. This pro¬
viso is to the effect that nothing con¬
tained in this bill shall give any new
water rights below Sioux City.
Mr. BURDICK. Let us suppose this
situation arises; It is admitted on all
sides and admitted in this report that
there is a shortage of water in the Mis¬
souri River at times. Let us suppose we
pass this bill and the Army engineers
use a certain amount of water for navi¬
gation. We want to use some of it for
irrigation, but they say; “You cannot do
that now because we need it for trans¬
portation on the river.” Which law is
going to prevail in a situation of that
kind? Do you think this amendment —
I understand the gentleman from South
Dakota offered it — does the gentleman
think this amendment will protect us in
the use of that water where we need it?
Mr. CASE. I have never maintained
that this proviso recaptured anything
which had been given to water users
below Sioux City by prior law. I have
always contended that this was the
minimum that we should have, that we
should make clear that any legislation
we are passing now establishes no new
priorities below Sioux City. The gentle-
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
4225
man realizes that the Fort Peck Act,
which was passed in 1938, dedicated Fort
Peck to navigate and to power.
My understanding of the pending bill
and the meaning of the Chief of Engi¬
neer’s letter, which is made law by refer¬
ence in the paragraph on the Missouri
River, provides that Fort Peck water
shall be progressively made available for
irrigation by relief as substitute storage
is created. In that respect we are
recapturing for irrigation some waters
that had previously been dedicated to
navigation.
Mr. BURDICK. The gentleman is
satisfied as he stands here this afternoon
that this amendment will protect the
people of the West in the use of water
for irrigation regardless of the condition
of the river?
Mr. CASE. I am satisfied it will pro¬
tect the people of the Northwest against
any new uses below Sioux City. I am
not satisfied that it recaptures anything
that we previously gave away.
Mr. BURDICK. What is the gentle¬
man’s answer to this new innovation
here, the destruction of the Department
of Reclamation?
Mr. CASE. I would not concede this
destroys the Bureau of Reclamation be¬
cause I know by the testimony before
the Flood Control Committee and by
specific statements made over the sig¬
nature of the Chief of Engineers and
by the provisions of House Document No.
475, which is referred to in the Missouri
River paragraph, that it is contemplated
the Bureau of Reclamation shall oper¬
ate all reclamation that may grow out
of the storage or main stem, and most
specifically that the Bureau oh Reclama¬
tion shall develop as much irrigation as
it wants to on any of the tributaries or
branches of the Missouri River and that
the Ai’my engineers care nothing about
it. If the gentleman desires, I can read
the specific paragraph from a letter from
the Chief of Engineers I received within
the last week which specifically states
that the Army engineers have always
contemplated that this program shall be
supplemented by the Bureau of Recla¬
mation with a works program for irri¬
gation.
Mr. BURDICK. Now, if it is satis¬
factory to the gentleman, I will make a
few feeble remarks of my own.
Mr. CASE. I desire to express my ap¬
preciation of the gentleman’s courtesy.
The gentleman was asking as to the
interpretation of some language.
Mr. BIJRDICK. I assure the gentle¬
man I will not ask him anything more
because he does not seem to know when
to put in a period.
Mr. CASE. That is because of the
gentleman’s courtesy and generosity.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, if all
that is true why do you want to act so
hurriedly on this bill? The Reclamation
Bureau has worked 5 years on a study
of this situation. That report is finished
but not yet printed. You have an over¬
all plan for the development of the Mis¬
souri River. Now, why not let the
Bureau of Reclamation come in and
show us the findings? You will not wait
for them, you want to get this done right
aw'ay. Of course, if you want to pass
this kind of a bill giving title to all water
over to the Government, then turn
around and buy the water back from the
Government, w/hy I would not wait for
any report either. I would go ahead and
do it right away. I challenge anyone
here to deny the fact that in this bill you
are going to substitute a new scheme in
place of the Bureau of Reclamation and
the water we use we are going to buy
this time. We have not had to buy it
before.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will the gen¬
tleman yield?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I respectfully
state again that it is not the intent of
the committee nor is it the purport of
the language to do anything except to
recognize the Bureau of Reclamation in
connection with reclamation projects.
I beg leave to differ with the gentleman,
to put it mildly, that there is anything
else in the law. If the gentleman will
permit me to say, in all reclamation proj¬
ects the people who get the water pay for
the use of it. The money goes to the
distribution channels or somewhere else.
There is nothing new in that way.
Mr. BURDICK. If the Army engi¬
neers are going to build canals and dis¬
tribute water, they are going to have
water to distribute, are they not?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I may say there
is no language in here that authorizes
them to build canals. That is left en¬
tirely to the Secretary of the Interior.
The Army engineers have nothing on
earth to do with it and there is no lan¬
guage authorizing them to construct
canals.
Mr. BURDICK. Your whole scheme
of river development anticipates that.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Anticipates
what?
Mr. BURDICK. The building of
cstHdils
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If they are to
be built, they will be built by the Secre¬
tary of the Interior, not by the Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. BURDICK. But the Department
of Reclamation can go out and do that?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is intended
here to recognize their function.
Mr. BURDICK. They can function
but they cannot function without water,
unless they can get the water from the
Army engineers.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. This language
in section 6 is intended to recognize and
to provide for a coordination in the rec¬
ognition of reclamation by the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Corps of Engi¬
neers is not going to do a thing on earth
except to make the water there available
to them, when there is water for recla¬
mation.
Mr. BURDICK. There are years now
and then when the Missouri River is low.
At the present moment the river is lower
at Bismarck, N. Dak., our capital, than
at any time during the last 30 years. It
is at the low mark. Suppose we have a
situation like that up in North Dakota
and we wanted to use some of that water
for irrigation, but you need it for navi¬
gation, which is going to control, irriga¬
tion or navigation, under this act?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the gentle¬
man addresses that question to me I
may say that the navigation provisions
are in the river and harbor bill now
pending in the Senate. That has pre¬
viously been considered by the House.
This has to do with the regulation of
fioods and these people down here where
they are suffering now from fioods, I am
sure, would be delighted for you to keep
all the water you could up there and to
get all you can. That is what they want
you to do.
If the bill goes through it means that
we have divested every one of the 17 arid
Western and semi-arid Western States of
their power over waters of that area, and
have turned the title to all waters gath¬
ered on the western plains to the United
States, and hereafter if we are to be
permitted to use any of these waters we
shall have to get permission from the
Department of the Interior and the Army
engineers, and above all we shall have to
pay cash for what water we get. That is
a simple and effective way of stripping
the States of the power under State laws;
it is a simple way of making people pay
for water which the Almighty sent to the
people of the arid West. This commit¬
tee may be in a mood to do this, but I
have lived on the western plains long
enough to know the value of water, and
I do not propose to set the Government
up in the cold-drink business and pay
cash for a drink of water. The people
all through the country are complaining
about the weakness of Congress in pass¬
ing laws that consolidate Federal powers
and destroy State rights. The President
is charged daily with wanting more
power, but here in this case the President
cannot be charged with wanting to strip
the States of their power over water in
the States, but it Is Congress and no one
else who is responsible for this immense
consolidation of Federal power.
It is Congress that says today that
hereafter we. In the arid West, will have
to pay cash for what water we must have
to maintain life. No more drastic and
far-reaching power over the people was
ever attempted by any Congress. When
Congress gets down to controlling the
necessities of life — a thing which we must
have in order to live — it is a step in na¬
tionalization that no President in 150
years has ever asked for.
Judge Stone makes this important ob¬
servation on the bill:
This provision would be applicable to areas
west of the ninety-seventh meridian, where
water heretofore has been appropriated and
distributed for domestic and industrial pur¬
poses under the provisions of State law. In
the 17 reclamation States when water is
conserved through storage in a reservoir, it
is subject to control under the State laws.
Here, however, we find a new and startling
Federal policy. The Corps of Engineers,
having been authorized under the commerce
clause to work out a plan of comprehensive
development and to construct and operate
projects in accordance with such plan, is ap¬
parently considered to have conserved water
which thereby becomes the property and sub¬
ject to the control of the United States.
This water, then, under the provision of H. R.
4485, may be made available to States in
the West or to legal subdivisions of those
States, if such States and legal subdivisions
I are willing to pay the United States a rental
4226
May 8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
price for it. The Western States which here¬
tofore have controlled the appropriation and
distribution of water resources for domestic,
irrigation, and industrial purposes on the
theory that such resources belong to the
public subject to control under State laws,
must under this bill recognize in such waters
the property of the United States and pay
for it if it is used by such States or their
citizens.
This is a radical departure from the recla¬
mation law of 1902, as amended. Under this
law the Secretary of the Interior was directed
to acquire water for reclamation projects in
the West which was used for domestic, irri¬
gation, and industrial purposes, in conformity
with the provisions of State law. The Fed¬
eral Government financed such projects under
a provision for repayment of the investment
by the Government. This controi under State
laws has been upheld repeatedly by the Su¬
preme Court and the Congress of the United
States. The Congress is now asked to re¬
verse this policy so far as fiood-control proj¬
ects constructed by the War Department are
concerned, and to initiate an entirely new
one whereby the Government will sell to the
States the benefits of their water resources.
SECTION 6. EEGTJLATIONS TOR THE USE OF
STORAGE AVAILABLE FOR RECLAMATION OF ARID
LANDS
Section 6, page 3, of H. R. 4485, provides that
whenever, in the opinion of the Secretary of
War and the Chief of Engineers, any dam
and reservoir operated under the direction of
the Secretary of War can be consistently used
for reclamation of arid lands, it shall be the
duty of the Secretary of the Interior to pre¬
scribe regulations for the use of the storage
available for such purpose, and the opera¬
tion of any such project shall be in accord¬
ance with such regulations. This provision
further sets out that such rates as the Sec¬
retary of the Interior may deem reasonable
shall be charged for the use of such stored
water used for the irrigation of arid lands.
This, indeed, is an amazing innovation
and change in Federal policy. Since this
provision refers to the reclamation of arid
lands, its application is confined to river
basins having their sources west of the ninety-
seventh meridian. It is in that area where
reclamation is essential to present and po¬
tential agricultural development.
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I sheld
121/2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. Case].
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, at the time
the gentleman from North Dakota was
leaving the floor I believe he had some¬
thing he wanted to add. In view of the
generosity he displayed toward me I
yield to him at this time.
Mr. BURDICK. Yes; I want to make
a speech.
Mr. CASE. Of course, I am not going
to yield all of my time to the gentleman.
If he does not find a period sooner than
I did, I may find it necessary to advise
him that I cannot yield further.
Mr. BURDICK. On reconsideration, I
have finally decided to let the gentleman
speak a few minutes himself.
Mr. CURTIS. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CASE. I yield to the gentleman
from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. The gentleman from
North Dakota raised a question about
the allocation of water for navigation.
As the Chairman very correctly stated,
that is an item that appears in the river
and harbor bill. It is not before the
House at all in this bill. I would like to
call the attention of the gentleman from
South Dakota to a portion of the testi¬
mony of Colonel Reber that I have in¬
serted in the Record wherein he states
that the plan for flood control, the so-
called Pick plan in the Missouri River
Basin, would be substantially the same
regardless of how the issue in the river
and harbor bill might be determined.
Mr. CASE. That is true, and it should
be kept in mind during the debate on
this bill. Mr. Chairman, during discus¬
sion on the bill this afternoon it has
seemed there was perhaps a little con¬
fusion — I am sure there is confusion in
the minds of people generally — as to the
difference between an authorization and
an appropriation for flood-control proj¬
ects. One of the speakers referred to
this bill as carrying funds for a certain
project. Actually this bill does not carry
funds for any project. It does not make
any appropriation. It merely establishes
an authorization under which appropri¬
ations may or may not be made later.
Mr. WRIGHT. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CASE. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WRIGHT. I think that was my¬
self and I intended to correct that state¬
ment.
Mr. CASE. I did not think it was the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, but in any
event it seems well to make the record
clear that in this bill we only set up an
authorization for projects. Whether a
dollar will ever be appropriated for any
of these projects depends upon future
legislation. Those appropriations may
never equal the authorizations. They
cannot exceed them except new author¬
izations are made.
The annual appropriation bill for the
civil functions of the War Department
is the bill that carries the appropriations
for the authorized projects. In that an¬
nual civil functions bill we carry appro¬
priations for authorized flood-control
projects under several different heads.
Some are for construction, some for
plans and specifications, some for emer¬
gency repairs, and some for maintenance
of completed works. We do the same
with respect to authorized rivers and
harbors projects.
So, let it be kept in mind that not a
dollar is appropriated by the bill before
us. This merely sets up an authorization
for appropriations, but the actual appro¬
priations are made by Congress in
months and years to come, and then only
after a presentation of specific works or
units under these authorizations.
The Corps of Engineers will make up
estimates annually of the projects on
which they can usefully spend funds in
an ensuing year. These will be examined
and sifted by the Bureau of the Budget.
Then the President will submit to the
Appropriations Committee the estimates
for the projects approved by the Bureau
of the Budget. The Appropriations Com¬
mittee will examine them further, and
the appropriations bill will come to the
House with funds for the projects it has
approved. Then the House will have a
chance to approve or reject, curtail or
increase, but all within the limit of au¬
thorizations carried in the basic author¬
ization bill now before us. And of course
when the House completes its action, the
appropriations bill goes to the Senate.
I mention these steps to remind us all,
and to make clear to those who may read
the Record, that passage of a flood-con¬
trol bill to authorize appropriations up
to a certain amount is not a guaranty
that certain projects will b.. built, and
especially to make clear that abundant
opportunity will be given for correlat¬
ing any program herein proposed with
other programs. Specifically, in the case
of the progKam proposed herein for the
Missouri River, when appropriations are
made there will be an opportunity to in¬
sure that there is no overlapping and no
duplication and no contradiction in
projects with those of any other agency.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CASE. I yield to the gentleman
from North Dakota.
Mr. LEMKE. If the chairman of the
committee is correct that this bill has
nothing to do with the distribution of
water, v/hy was this proviso put in on
page 12, line 20?
Provided, Tliat nothing in this act shall
be construed as creating below Sioux City
any demand upon the water resources of the
Missouri River Basin above Sioux City in
excess of that now authorized by existing
law.
Consequentlj^ the chairman, at least,
must be mistaken. He does not fully
comprehend what this bill means, and if
his suggestions are sincere, why object
to putting amendments in this bill that
will allay our apprehension of what he
is attempting to do?
Mr. CASE. Probably that question
should be answered by the chairman, but
it would appear to me that the proviso
makes clear and positive that nothing
in the bill distributes any new water
rights on the Missouri below Sioux City
and that nothing is even to be construed
as doing so.
It says as plainly as can be that noth¬
ing in the act is to be construed as giving
to water users below Sioux City any wa¬
ter to which they are not entitled by
prior authorizations. It distributes
nothing to them. It reserves for use
above Sioux City the water not pre¬
viously authorized for projects below
Sioux City but makes no distribution of
this reservation, leaving that for alloca¬
tion by agreement among interested par¬
ties as reservoirs are constructed from
time to time and storage becomes avail¬
able for distribution.
FLOODS ARE NATIONAL ENEMIES
Mr. Chairman, it is fit and proper that
Congress consider this bill at this time.
Floods are an enemy of the country in
peace and in war. A week ago today
the distinguished gentleman from Mis¬
souri [Mr. Cannon], chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, took the floor
and gave one of the most graphic state¬
ments of the national character of the
flood problem on the Missouri River that
I have ever heard. I read from the Rec¬
ord of May 2:
The Central West is being devastated by
the greatest flood within the memory of
man. The tide of water sweeping down the
valleys of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers
and their tributaries exceeds in height and
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
velocity all official records since 1844 — the
greatest flood in the last 100 years.
It will be recalled, Mr. Chairman, that
a year ago last March the Missouri River
was in high flood. At that time we
thought it was terrible. I remember
comparing its destruction later with that
wrought by brave bombers who invaded
Germany and blasted holes in two great
dams to engulf war plants of the enemy.
Here in America 2,000,000 acres of farm
lands were put under water. Factories
producing war goods in'K-'nsas City were
put out of commission.
I was going west to meet Army and
reclamation engineers at Pierre. S. Dak.,
for a conference with our Governor
Sharpe on this very flood problem. I
tried to fly to Omaha, but at Chicago
they told me the Omaha airport was
under water and would be out of use for
6 weeks.
My trip was not particularly impor¬
tant, but I ask you to estimate what
value Hitler would have thought it would
be to him if he could have sent bombers
to America to knock out war factories at
Kansas City and the airport at Omaha.
When the battle of the 1943 flood on
the Missouri was over, the Chief of En¬
gineers determined that more than
$47,000,000 worth of direct damage had
been done. He testified before the Ap¬
propriations Committee this spring that
$3,014,000 was spent in fighting the flood
and repairing broken levees, and that
when it was done we had no new pro¬
tection. That means the Missouri floods
last year alone cost over $50,000,000 and
nothing to show for it except waste and
destruction.
That was last year. Some men said
it will not happen again for years and
years. But it has. This year not the
Omaha but the Kansas City airport was
put under water, taking out of use that
important air transportation center for
a critical period of time. Let me read
again from the statement by the gentle¬
man from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], made
just a week ago:
The Missouri River is establishing a new
Channel at its mouth. The confluence of
these two great rivers is being moved 26 miles
upstream. A new river is being opened
through what was a short time ago inland
fields. Through this new avenue water ^Is
rushing at the rate of 17 miles per hour.
It has engulfed whole sections of the M. K.
& T. Railroad and the Burlington Railroad.
It has obliterated interstate highways. It
has broken the pipe line which runs from
Texas to New York, which has been carrying
the oil without which the New England States
would have endured the greatest privation.
It is sweeping away the cables carrying elec¬
tric current from the Keokuk Dam to metro¬
politan St. Louis, and steel towers supporting
the transmission lines are at the bottom of
the river. It has resisted all efforts to curb
tl^e current and hold the levees and railroad
embankments and railway cars loaded with
rock for revetment have been undermined and
rolled into the river. It has destroyed light,
telephone communications, and sanitary sys¬
tems. So rapid has been the rise of the
waters that it has been necessary to organize
relief to rescrie marooned families from farm
homes.
The damage is conservatively estimated to
be in excess of $20,000,000, and the loss to
agricultural production is incalculable.
Growing fields, livestock, machinery, fences,
houses, barns, and equipment have been
swept away overnight and cannot be re¬
placed in time to produce a crop without
Federal assistance in the form of both loans,
grants, and priorities.
Every sentence of the gentleman’s
statement tells the interstate character,
the national character of the flood prob¬
lem.
So, Mr. Chairman, when we discuss a
program to stop such destruction we are
attacking an enemy of the country. Over
the weekend much was made of the
bombing of the Pescara Dam in Italy be¬
cause of the damage the resulting flood
would do to our enemy on that front.
That was proper, and a good job. And
when we in the House of Representatives
take steps to end the floods on the Mis¬
souri River, when we here authorize the
preparation of plans to stop this destruc¬
tion for all time in the Missouri and other
river basins of the country, we are doing
a proper and important job.
AND DROUGHTS, TOO
The floods, however, are only one side
of the problem we attack. The other is
drought.
Up in the Northwest, in the States ol
Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, ana
South Dakota, our interest in the Mis¬
souri does not stem so much from the
damage by the floods as it does from the
tragic fact that the water which creates
so much havoc below Sioux City would
be a lifesaver to us above Sioux City if
it were stored in reservoirs so that we
could use it when we need it.
Drought, too, is a national problem.
In the years from 1933 to 1937, the
Federal Government expended $56,-
000,000 on loans, grants, and work relief
in seven North Dakota counties, all be¬
cause of drought. In 1937, more than 73
percent of the population of Williams
County was dependent on relief. Just
across the river in the lower Yellow¬
stone irrigation district, the relief load
represented less than 5 percent of the
population.
In other words, where water had been
stored for use in dry years, the relief
load of the Federal Government was far
below the national average; in an ad¬
joining county where the floodwaters
had not been stored, the relief load was
far above the national average — less
than 5 percent of the people on relief
where floodwaters had been stored; more
than 73 percent where Old Man Flood
and Old Man Drought ran on together.
THIS BILL TACKLES BOTH
The program proposed in the bill be¬
fore us includes a program to end floods
on the Missouri River for all time to
come. Col. Lewis A. Pick, now General
Pick, who was the division engineer who
worked out the plan proposed, said that
it is designed to put the entire flow of
the Missouri River above Sioux City un¬
der control. And, realizing that the
national problem did not end with sim¬
ply stopping the floods, he proposed that
the reservoirs be built for multiple pur¬
poses. He proposed that the waters
when stored be made available for the
several uses to which they might prop¬
erly be applied.
That is why the language of the bill on
page 12 carries these words:.
4227
plan of improvement for flood control, ir¬
rigation, power development, navigation and
other purposes, substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document No. 475,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.
Discussion that has already taken
place on the floor indicates how the
committee proposes that waters stored
under the plan proposed are to be made
available to States, municipalities, and
individuals for recreational, agricultural,
industrial, and other beneficial use, and
how water will also be made available for
irrigation under such regulations as the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation, shall pre¬
scribe, presumably in accord with Fed¬
eral reclamation practice and laws.
The Bureau of Reclamation has been
working in the valley of the upper Mis¬
souri for at least 5 years. The first per¬
son I ever heard describe a detailed pro¬
posal for a comprehensive development
of the water resources of the basin was
Mr. W. G. Sloan, chief of the field in¬
vestigation force in the Denver office of
the Bureau, and now assistant regional
director at Billings.
I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the
report of the Bureau of Reclamation for
application of the water proposed to be
stored in the Army engineers’ plan might
have been completed last year and co¬
ordinated with the report embodied in
the bill before us. The trip to Pierre,
that I mentioned earlier, was made with
that purpose in mind. Many other con¬
ferences were held on the subject. For
one reason or another, however, prin¬
cipally a shortage of personnel, I be¬
lieve, the report of the Bureau of Recla¬
mation was not completed until a few
days ago.
I have studied that report, as I have
that of the Army engineers. The one
supplements the other in a splendid way.
Personally, I wish that both of them
might be authorized at this time. There
seem to be only two questions at issue,
or two different points of view.
MAXIMUM FLOOD VERSUS MAXIMUM DROUGHT
One of them concerns the amount of
water that can be depended upon, or,
to put it another way, the amount of
flood that has to be handled. The job of
the Army engineers is to provide for the
maximum flood; the concern of the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation is to have water to
last through the longest drougth or dry
cycle. And looked at from this angle,
it would seem that both agencies should
want, and I believe they do want, the
maximum possible storage on both the
main stem and the tributaries of the
Missouri.
The best way to get at the size of the
problem is to study the records of water
run-off. In flood control, obviously, the
dams must be placed below the area where
the water accumulates, from rain or melt¬
ing snow and ice. Moreover, the nearer
the reservoirs can be placed to the areas
of greatest possible damage, the more
certain the protection that can be given.
In 1943, the Chief of Engineers ad¬
vises me, the big March flood came prin¬
cipally from sudden rain and melting
snow in the plains of eastern Montana,
North Dakota, and South Dakota. The
4228
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 8
figures are: Prom Wyoming 230,000 acre-
feet; from Montana 1,800,000 acre-feet,
from North Dakota, 1,700,000 acre-feet;
from South Dakota 1,000,000 acre-feet.
The dam at Port Peck stopped 495,000
acre -feet that would otherwise have gone
Into the flood and would have raised its
crest at Omaha by 2.3 feet, covering a
great part of the city of Council Bluffs.
A great deal of the trouble in this
year’s flood, way down in Missouri, was
caused by the huge amount of water
that came from the melting of the heav¬
iest blanket of snow that the northwest¬
ern part of South Dakota has ever had.
I saw part of it, a month ago today,
Mr. Chairman, flooding the valleys of the
grand and Moreau Rivers, in South
Dakota, washing out all the approaches
to bridges from the headwaters of the
Grand to its confluence with the Mis¬
souri, across 250 miles of northern South
Dakota.
So, as I have said, an approach to the
problem calls for an understanding of
the volume of water with which we are
dealing. And at this point, it is appro¬
priate to insert the official tables show¬
ing the run-off on the Missouri River
for as long as records are available. By
permission of the House, I insert the
table:
Annual run-off of Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers
Water-year ending Sept. 30
yellowstono
River intake,
Montana
Missouri
River, Fort
Peck, Mont.
Missouri
River, Willis-
ton, Mont,
(near Mon¬
tana-North
Dakota line)
Missouri
River,
Mobridge,
S. Dak (near
North Da¬
kota-South
Dakota line)
Missouri
River,
Yankton,
S. Dak.
(near South
Dakota-
Nebraska
line)
1898 . . .
Acre-feel
7, 923, 000
Acre-feet
9,840,000
Acre-feet
19, 432, 000
Acre-feel
21, 526, 000
Acre-feet
25, 114, 000
1899 . . . .
9. 757, 000
10, TTJ, 000
22, 501, 000
23. 887, 000
26, 192, 000
1900 . . . - .
8,005,000
8, 273, 000
17, 718,000
18, 897, 000
22, 808, 000
1901 .
6, 598, 000
7, 257, 000
14, 917, 000
15, 949, 000
19, 192, 000
1902 . . .
5, 135, 000
6,942,000
13, 175, 000
15, 247, 000
19, 376, 000
1903 . . . .
8, 415, 000
7, 647, 000
17, 315, 000
18, 955, 000
23, 974, 000
1904 . . .
11,681,000
8, 314, OOO
21, 217, 000
22, 059, 000
25, 633, 000
1905 . . .
8, 695, 000
6, 451, 000
14, 905, 000
16, 756, 000
21, 470, 000
1906 . . .
9, 936, 000
6, 478, 000
17, 693, 000
19, 657, 000
24, 147, 000
1907 . - . . . . .
12, 805, 000
10, 961, 000
25, 20i 000
27, 772, 000
32, 603, 000
1908 . . .
11, 808, 000
12, 389, 000
■ 25, 257, 000
26, 739, 000
29, 672, 000
1909 . . . . . .
13, 043, 000
11,843, 000
26, 354, 000
28, 530, 000
32, 374, 000
1910 _ _ - .
9,032,000
7, 276, 000
17, 030, 000
18, 561, 000
21, 375, 000
1911 . . . . - .
9,660,000
7, 581, 000
18, 111, 000
18, 982, 000
20, 835, 000
1912 . . . . . . . . .
12, 883, 000
8, 972, 000
23, 019, 000
25, 814, 000
30, 527, 000
1913 . . . —
12, 200, 000
10, 569, 000
24, 172, 000
25, 732, 000
28. 061, 000
1914 . . . . .
10, 000, 000
8, 085, 000
19, 553, 000
22, 407, 000
25, 256, 000
1915 . . .
10, 000, 000
8, 925, 000
20, 103, 000
22, 378, 000
32, 274, 000
1916 . - . . .
12, 000, 000
11, 118, 000
25, 480, 000
27, 862, 000
31, 243, 000
1917 . . . . . . . .
13, 800, 000
12, 643, 000
28, 080, 000
29, 263, 000
32, 321, 000
1918 . . . .
12, 900, 000
7, 909, 000
22, 012, 000
23, 960, 000
26, 868, 000
1919 . . . . J. .
5, 530, 000
4, 662, 000
10, 776, 000
11, 740, 000
13, 419, 000
1920 . . . . .
10, 700, 000
7, 447, 000
19, 518, 000
21, 657, 000
27, 586, 000
1921 . - .
9, 270, 000
7, 007, 000
17, 566, 000
18, 727, 000
21, 287, 000
1922 . . . . .
8, 630, 000
7, 179, 000
16, 498, 000
18, 742, 000
23, 248, 000
1923 . . . .
9, 386, 000
7, 126, 000
17, 499, 000
19. 626, 000
25, 647, 000
1924 . . .
15, 400, 000
6, 133, 000
23, 097, 000
24, 981, 000
27, 367, 000
1925 . . .
12, 800, 000
7,358,000
21, 653, 000
23, 341, 000
26,226,000
1926 . . . . .
9, 530, 000
6, 469, 000
16, 671, 000
17, 931, 000
20, 494, 000
1927 . . .
13, 600, 000
10, 922, 000
25, 828, 000
28, 339, 000
35, 483, 000
1928 . . .
12, 300, 000
9,588,000
23, 262, 000
25, 484, 000
28, 759, 000
The following 14 years are the years that,
used alone, show an '‘average” mn-off per
year of only 16,000,003 acre-feet:
1929 . . . .
10, 400, 000
5, 648,000
16, 900, 000
19, 443, 000
24, 321, 000
1930 . . . . .
8, 310, 000
4, 998, 000
14; 100, 000
16, 387, 000
18, 025, 000
1931 .
6, 080, 000
3, 937, 000
9, 620, 000
9, 443, 000
11, 212, 000
1932 . . . .
8, 560,000
6, 157, 000
14, 000, 000
15.501,000
18, 500, 000
1933 .
8, 280, 000
6,316,000
14, 200, 000
14, 853, 000
17, 600, 000
1934 . . .
4, 388, 000
4, 912, 000
9, 925, 000
9, 946, 000
11, 450, 000
1935 . . . .
6, 908, 000
4, 120, 000
11, 390, 000
11,950,000
14, 206, 000
1936 _ _
6, 672, 000
4, 129, 000
11, 120, 000
11, 380, 000
13, no, 000
1937 . . . . .
6, 958, 000
3, 397, 000
10, 460, 000
li, 540, 000
13, 780, 000
1938 . . . . . .
8. 910, 000
6, 293, 000
16, 163, 000
17, 099, 000
18, 956, 000
1939 . . . .
6, 626, 000
6, 284, 000
13, 342, 000
14, 616, 000
16, 375; 000
1940. . . . . . .
6, 233, 000
3, 852, 000
9, 848, 000
10, 309, 000
11, 569, 000
1941 . . . .
7, 275, 000
3, 684, 000
11, 239, 000
12,421,000
14, 440, 000
1942 .
9, 970, 000
7, 676, 000
17, 916, 000
19. 707, 000
25, 232, 000
1943 . . .
13, 322, 000
9, 609, 000
2i 905, 000
29, 204, 000
30, 683, 000
1898-1943 (46 years);
Mean _ _ _
9, 590, 000
7, 420, 000
18, 100, 000
19, 700, 000
23, 050, 000
Maximum _
15, 400, 000
12, 600, 000
28, 100, 000
29, 300, 000
35, 500, 000
Minimum _
4, 390, 000
3, 400, 000
9, 620, 000
9, 440, 000
11, 200, 700
There has been some confusion about
the various proposals for handling the
waters of the Missouri Basin, Mr. Chair¬
man, and that has grown out of the
figures that have been used. The fears
that have been expressed in behalf of
reclamation have rested upon using the
flow of the river for the 14-year period
from 1929 to 1942, Inclusive. During
that period of time the average annual
run-off at a point between Yankton and
Sioux City has been just under 16,000,-
000 acre-feet of water per year. How¬
ever, the record over a longer period of
time, from the time that records have
been kept from 1898 to 1943, inclusive,
shows that the mean annual flow on the
river is 23,050,000 acre-feet; in other
words, 7,000,000 acre-feet more per year.
That alone is enough to meet the esti¬
mated annual consumptive demand for
the 4,500,000 acres of land that is sus¬
ceptible to irrigation, if it is stored.
The proposal of the Army engineers is
that the maximum possible storage be
created in order that the water of the
wettest years be carried over into the
dry years and in order that there be
enough vacant storage to take care of
the floods as they come. In that 14-year
period upon which the fears have
been built, there were only 2 years where
the annual flow exceeded 20,000,000 acre-
feet; but in the 31 years prior to those
14 years there were only 3 yeai s in which
the flow was less than 20,000,000 acre-
feet, and 28 of the 31 years had flows of
from 20,000,000 up to 35,000,000 acre-feet.
In the dry 14-year period, there were 3
years in which there was only 11,000,000
acre-feet, 2 of only 13,000,000 acre-feet,
and 2 of only 14,000,000 acre-feet,
and only 2, as I have said, where there
was more than 20,000,000 acre-feet. But
in the prior 31 years there was only 1
year out of 31 where the flow was as
little as 13,000,000 acre-feet, 2 were 19,-
000,000 acre-feet plus, and the others
were all more than 20,000,000 acre-feet.
The table over the long period speaks for
itself, Mr, Chairman and should be care¬
fully studied. There must be maximum
storage to handle the maximum run-off
and save it to get the maximum benefit in
the dry cycles.
COOEDINATING THE TWO REPORTS
The question of coordinating the re¬
port of the Army engineers and the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation with respect to the
program of works proposed, Mr. Chair¬
man, is also one to which I have ad¬
dressed myself. It has been understood
by everyone who attended the commit¬
tee hearings or who has read the Chief
of Engineers’ recommendations that the
Army engineers have expected that the
Bureau of Reclamation should propose a
program of works to utilize for irrigation
all the water for which suitable lands
could be found.
That is further confirmed by this
paragraph in a letter by the Chief of
Engineers, dated May 3, 1944, which
says;
The Department’s (War) plan for the
Missouri River Basin has always contem¬
plated that the Bureau of Reclamation would
construct upstream projects for storage and
distribution of Irrigation water.
The occasion for that statement was
my submission to the Chief of Engineers
of a copy of a letter I presented to the
Bureau of the Budget on the 29th of
April 1944. This letter attempted to
analyze the situation with respect to the
reports by the two agencies, the Army
engineer’s report being officially before
the Congress and embodied in the bill
now before us, and the Reclamation re¬
port being in Washington but not then
formally transmitted to the Congress.
It was submitted last Friday and is now
being printed as Senate Document No.
191.
Under permission granted by the
House, I Insert my letter to the Director
of the Budget at this point:
Congress op the United States,
House op Representatives,
Washington, D. C., April 29, 1944.
Re Missouri River.
The Honorable Harold D. Smith,
Director, Bureau of the Budget,
Washington, D. C.
Mt Dear Mr. Smith: At the time Qov.
M. Q. Sharpe, chairman of the Nine States
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
Committee, and I met with you prior to the
hearings of the House Committee on Flood
Control, you expressed the conviction that
the great post-war job that would rehabilitate
the economic life of the Nation would be the
harnessing of our rivers and development of
mu' water resources. You expressed a very
definite interest in proposals for the Mis¬
souri Biver Basin. You also expressed the
hope, as you did in your subsequent letter to
the Chief of Engineers, that the proposals of
the Army engineers and Bureau of Reclama¬
tion might be intergrated.
That hope, it seems to me, can now be
realized. The Bureau of Reclamation has
completed its study and prepared recom¬
mendations. The Rules Committee of the
House of Representatives has granted a rule
for consideration of H. R. 4485, the bill re¬
ported by the Committee on Flood Control,
embracing an authorization to start on the
plan of control substantially in accord with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers which, in itself, was described as "a
broad framework” and purposely flexible to
permit adaptation and modification.
Action at this time is urgent. Last year
the floods of the Missouri caused direct dam¬
ages totaling more than $47,000,000 and cost
the Treasury an additional $3,014,000 for re¬
pairs that did not give one bit of new pro¬
tection. This year, the Missovni is in flood
again. Last year, Omaha’s airport was imder
water for weeks. This year it is Kansas City’s.
Both years, more than a million acres of farm¬
lands were inundated and hundreds of thou¬
sands of acres taken out of production of
needed war foods.
We can have action at this time if we go
ahead with the phases on which the engi¬
neers (Army) and the Bureau of Reclamation
are in agreement. In every field of human
endeavor progress is made by concentrating
upon and starting with points in agreement.
Time and developments frequently bring the
solutions to the points not originally in agree¬
ment. I am reasonably familiar with the de¬
tails of the proposals by both the Army engi¬
neers and Reclamation. A brief review will
show that the works and program on which
they are in areement offer abundant oppor¬
tunity for both agencies to get under way as
soon as conditions permit. I am venturing
to suggest a course of action for considera¬
tion. First, however, a quick review of what
is proposed:
1. On the tributaries: There is no disagree¬
ment on works proposed for the tributaries of
the Missouri. The Bureau of Reclamation
suggests many more reservoirs than the Army
engineers, naturally, since the latter’s recom¬
mendations were made primarily in response
to a resolution requesting a program for con¬
trolling floods below Sioux City. ’The letter
of the Chief of Engineers, which by reference
is made law, if H. R. 4485 becomes law as
written, very definitely makes provision for
additional reservoirs on the tributaries and
further suggests the principle that construc¬
tion and operation of tributary reservoirs
should be by the agency with the dominant
Interest. The same principle is enunciated
by the Commissioner of Reclamation. And
the flexibility urged by both agencies, coupled
with agreement on the principle of dominant
interest for construction and operation, offer
a complete solution to tributary questions.
It may be said in passing that the program
of construction on the tributaries probably
offers more Immediate relief from flood prob¬
lems and water -use problems for people over
a wider »rea than do the proposals for stor¬
age on the main stem of the river, although
the latter may serve a greater total number
of people in cities along the river. In men¬
tioning this, I do so merely to make the point
that the works proposed and made possibly
by the program for work on the tributaries is
sufllciently important to Justify getting ac¬
tion started now.
2. On the main stem: Here the problem
breaks down into natural divisions which lead
to a natural solution.
a. Randalls Island Dam: No disagreement.
Both agencies recommend a dam at this
point. Reclamation estimates capacity at
6,100,000 acre-feet; the Army at 6,000,000.
Whether the latter is a round figiure or
whether there is a slight difference in meas¬
urements or in proposed elevations is im¬
material unless the latter should cover a por¬
tion of the fall proposed by reclamation for
a power dam at Big Bend, several miles up¬
stream. If any question on that point, it
wouid be resolved by the recommendations
of the Federal Power Commission in the very
nature of things under existing law. Hence,
there is no reason why the Randalls Island
Dam should not have the go-ahead the same
as the tributary program.
b. Oahe to Bismarck: niis stretch of the
river is proposed to be covered by storage
under both plans. Army and Reclamation.
The sole question is whether it is to be done
by one high dam at Oahe or by one dam
there, somewhat lower, and by a second dam
at Oak Creek upstream. Obviously if it is
done by the one high dam the reservoir ca¬
pacity will be greater, since it will have the
benefit of the greater depth in the down¬
stream portion below Oak Creek. The Army
engineers want storage, the more the better,
to accomplish the greatest possible carry¬
over of water from wet cycles to dry. Hence,
if engineering considerations permit the high
dam, the Army engineers will want that
built just as much or more than does Rec¬
lamation.
The controlling engineering considera¬
tions, I believe, will be found to be the
presence of satisfactory footings for the
higher and, hence, heavier dam; the presence
of satisfactory shoulders for abutments and
spillway, if any, due to the surface presence
of granite boulders and glacial drift; the
feasibility of raising the highway and rail¬
road bridges just below the Oak Creek site,
which would be at the tail of the Oahe Res¬
ervoir if built to the low design. These, ob¬
viously, are matters on which engineering
facts and not desires or opinions will neces¬
sarily control. Since both plans want a dam
at Oahe, and since both agencies want the
maximum possible storage, and since the
high dam can be built under both plans, and
obviously will be built if conditions permit,
there is no disagreement on this sector. The
high dam is clearly authorized under the
language of H. R. 4485 if conditions cited
permit the high dam to be built.
So, here again, there is agreement, and the
authorizations should be made to permit
this to get under way.
c. Gavins Point and Big Bend: These are
two small dams, one above and one below
Randalls Island. Neither of them’ conflict
with anything else, and since one is pro¬
posed by the Army and one by Reclamation,
why not authorize them both?
Gavin’s Point would have only about
200,000 acre -feet storage, but the Army wants
it for regulating purposes. Since the Army,
under any plan, will have the job of regula¬
tion, and since Gavin’s Point is about 100
river miles nearer the critical flood area at
Sioux City, and since it is far downstream
from any of Reclamation’s Irrigation proj¬
ects, the natural solution is to let the Army’s
proposal stand. It will interfere with nothing
else and it gives some more storage.
Big Bend would provide a little storage,
too; not much because Reclamation proposes
it primarily to take advantage of a freak
bend in the river where cutting across a
three-fourth -mile neck will give the benefit
of a 21 -loot fall and plus the proposed dam
height create a substantial amount of firm
power. Here again, this interferes with noth¬
ing. And since Its construction would de¬
4229
pend upon the development of power markets
and need as determined sometime in the
future by the Federal Power Commission, the
natural solution is to let the Bureau’s pro¬
posal stand and be authorized. It adds po¬
tential benefits to the over-all plan.
d. Garrison and the North Dakota Souris
diversion: Here is the one area of substan¬
tial disagreement in the two plans. The
Army engineers want the large storage that
can be created by a high dam at Garrison,
N. Dak., some 19,000,000 acre-feet. Such a
reservoir would flood a great deal of the
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, cover the
Buford-Trenton irrigation project only re¬
cently completed, and prevent some proposed
irrigation along the main stem of the river.
Hence, the objections by Reclamation.
On the other hand, the Bureau of Recla¬
mation wishes to divert a great deal of water
from the Missouri River Basin over into the
Souris Basin, and there to irrigate about a
million acres in another watershed. Now
whether that should be done eventually, I
certainly do not know and have no basis for
an opinion. It is proposed to do this by
extending the canals that would be built to
utilize water stored in the Fort Peck Dam,
now constructed.
Both Army engineers and Reclamation pro¬
pose to put some water into the Devils Lake
area and then to carry it into the James
River to insure a flow of that stream for the
benefit of the farmers and municipal water
users, having in mind that the James Is a
part of the Missouri Basin and that its flow
retiirns to the Missouri. The Souris and the
Cheyenne flow north into Canada eventually,
although I believe it is possible from an
engineering standpoint to devise works that
would return any excess flow back to the
Missouri.
Whichever plan is right on this point, it is
not necessary to determine at this time.
Certainly it is not necessary to hold up all
the good and beneficial projects for the trib¬
utaries in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, until
this problem of Garrison or Souris is settled.
Nor is it necessary to permit floods to con¬
tinue in their maximum of damage and de¬
struction because all the other reservoirs' on
the main stem are held up to see what hap¬
pens to Garrison.
'The natural solution to this situation is
to authorize the balance of the programs pro¬
posed and let this matter receive further
study.
As the mechanics to accomplish what I
have suggested, the following procedure
might be followed:
1. Let the Reclamation report be trans¬
mitted to the Speaker by a letter from the
Secretary of the Interior, incoi-porating a
letter of recommendations by the Commis¬
sioner of Reclamation, proposing, in effect,
that the program of the Bureau be approved
and authorized substantially as recom¬
mended except as to the Souris diversion in
North Dakota, and that a limitation be placed
in the proposed authorization for the Army
engineers against initiating construction of
the Garrison Dam until further study by the
agencies concerned produces an agreement
between them and with the people of North
Dakota, and that appropriations be author¬
ized to commence the initial coitstruction
program set forth in the report.
2. A report so transmitted, and recom¬
mended by you, should be constrtied by the
Speaker as a favorable report and as such
would normally be ordered printed, given a
House document number, and referred to an
appropriate committee.
3. The assignment of a House document
number makes the report identifiable for leg¬
islative purposes and immediate action
would be accomplished if an amendment
were accepted to the Missouri River para-
No. 81 - 8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
4230
graph in H. R. 4485, now pending, worded,
perhaps, substantially as follows;
“Provided further. That of the amount
above authorized to be appropriated $ -
is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior for the prosecution
of the integrated Initial construction pro¬
gram of water storage and utilization recom¬
mended by the Commissioner of Reclamation
in House Document No. — , Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session: And provided fur¬
ther, That none of the funds herein author¬
ized to be appropriated shall be expended by
the Secretary of War for construction of the
proposed Garrison Reservoir nor by the Secre¬
tary of the Interior for construction of the
proposed North Dakota division of the
Missouri-Souris project pending further
study and report to Congress on both projects
by both agencies.”
If both agencies and yourself should agree
upon such a course, I believe that the Com¬
mittee on Flood Control would authorize
its chairman to offer such an amendment in
behalf of the committee and that should
Insure its acceptance.
Such an amendment need not increase the
total authorization of the flood-control bill.
The bill proposes an authorization of $200,-
000,000 against the existing Missouri flood-
control authorizations of $145,000,000
(against which $16,000,000 has been author¬
ized to be appropriated) and the new author¬
izations proposed for $481,000,000. The
Army engineers’ report suggested $130,000,000
for the first phase of construction on the new
program, I believe. That could be provided
with $20,000,000 in mind for additional work
on the old program and still leave $50,000,000
which could be authorized to initiate the
Bureau’s construction program. It shotfld
be kept in mind, of course., that the reclama¬
tion program will be substantially advanced
by some of the main stem storage and espe¬
cially by the release of Fort Peck for irriga¬
tion as substitute storage is built.
The program would then be under way.
It will mark an epoch in the development
and growth of the United States.
Sincerely yours.
Francis Case,
Representative in Congress,
Second South Dakota District.
It will be noted that my suggestion
was that the Budget Director clear the
Reclamation report for transmission to
Congress with the recommendation that
the initial construction program of tribu¬
tary dams and of distribution works for
the irrigation water on tributaries and
main stem be authorized, except that
funds be held up for the Souris section
in North Dakota in Reclamation’s plan
and the Garrison Dam in the Army’s
plan.
I left copies of this letter with the
Commissioner of Reclamation and also
with the Chief of Engineers. Pi’om the
latter I have a letter of comment, from
which the paragraph above was quoted,
and, with the permission of the House,
I place it in the Record at this point:
War Department,
Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, May 3, 1944.
Hon. Francis Case,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Case; Reference Is made to
your recent call at this Office, at which time
you left a copy of your letter to the Director,
Bureau of the Budget, dated April 29, 1944,
regarding the development of the water re¬
sources of the Missouri River Basin. In ac¬
cordance with your request made at that time
and in subsequent conversations with this
office, the following comments are furnished
with respect to your letter to the Budget.
The Department considers that the Gar¬
rison Reservoir Is essential to the plan for
flood control and other purposes In the Mis¬
souri River Basin, that It should have high
priority in the order of construction of the
several features of that plan, and that it
cannot be eliminated or deferred without
largely nullifying the benefits expected from
the plan as a whole. The conclusions as
to Its essentiality and priority of construc¬
tion are based on the following considera¬
tions :
1. The plan proposed by the Bureau of
Reclamation which eliminates the Garrison
Reservoir would decrease by more than 10,-
000,000 acre-feet the storage on the main
stream of the Missouri River in North and
South Dakota as proposed in the report of
this Department.
As the levees along the Missouri River
below Sioux City recommended by the De¬
partment are established at the maximum
practicable height, their effectiveness and
safety require adequate reservoir control up¬
stream from Sioux City.
Main-stem reservoirs are most effective
from the standpoint of flood control below
Sioux City, and since the high dam at the
Garrison site provides over two-fifths of
all the main-stem storage of the War De¬
partment plan it cannot be eliminated with¬
out sacrificing flood-control benefits con¬
templated in that plan.
2. It is fundamental in the best use of
the water of the Missouri River Basin that
as much cyclic storage as possible be at¬
tained in order to conserve the stream flow
as completely as possible and to prevent
wastage of water during wet periods.
The high dam at Garrison makes possible
a large amount of carry-over storage for ir¬
rigation diversions in that region and for
stream-flow regulation.
In addition, the maximum potentialities
of the other main -stem sites should also be
developed if practicable from engineering
and economic standpoints.
3. The Garrison project has a large silt
storage reserve in which silt can be stored
for many years without impairment of the
reservoir’s effectiveness for flood control and
water conservation.
Adequate silt storage cannot be provided
at any other site.
If the reservoirs below Garrison are built
prior to the construction of Garrison, the
silt that will collect in those downstream
projects will greatly reduce their effective
capacity for useful purposes.
4. The Garrison project will furnish water,
by gravity flow and supplementary pumping,
for irrigating large areas of irrigable land in
North and South Dakota and for increas¬
ing the water supply in the Devils Lake and
James River areas.
It will also be possible to pump from the
Garrison Reservoir into the Souris River
area if it should be desired to irrigate land
in that vicinity in the future.
The land that can be irrigated from the
Garrison Reservoir exceeds by many times the
small amount of irrigable land inundated
by the reservoir pool.
Moreover, the large amount of fertile bot¬
tom lands along the lower river that will re¬
ceive substantial flood protection from Gar¬
rison and other main-stem reservoirs also
exceeds by many times the land taken out
of possible productive use by inundation in
reservoirs.
6. Any lowering of the Garrison pool would
Increase the cost of pumping to the irrigable
areas in the Devils Lake and James River
regions and would also increase the cost of
the dam because of the excessive spillway
excavation that would be required.
6. Before Fort Peck Reservoir can be used
for irrigation, as has been proposed by the
Bureau of Reclamation, equivalent storage
must be provided at downstream sites for
the benefit of navigation. In my opinion a
large part of the substitute storage must be
placed at the Garrison site.
7. The plan of the Bureau of Reclamation
proposes a high dam at the Oahe site in place
of the Oak Creek and lower Oahe projects
proposed in the Department’s plan, and the
Bureau considers the high Oahe project as
a substitute for the Garrison Reservoir.
At the present time there is not sufficient
Information available on the Oahe site to
assure the engineering feasibility of con¬
structing a high dam.
If the feasibility is proven by detailed in¬
vestigations, it would certainly be wise to
construct the largest practicable reservoir at
this location, but the Oahe Reservoir cannot
be substituted for the Garrison, Oak Creek,
and lower Oahe projects without loss of a
major part of the benefits contemplated from
the latter three projects.
In summary, the Garrison Reservoir will
make a material contribution toward the
early flood protection of thousands of acres
of rich bottom lands and important cities
on the lower Missouri River; will greatly in¬
crease the cyclic storage in the Missouri
Basin for all water uses; will provide sub¬
stantial silt capacity: wdll make available
water for irrigation of many times the irri¬
gable land inundated by the reservoir, as well
as for domestic water supply in the Dakotas;
will be constructed upon a site that has been
definitely determined as suitable for a high
dam and where a low dam would be unwise
because of increased spillway and pumping
costs: and will be the earliest means of fur¬
nishing the substitute storage that will per¬
mit the use of Fort Peck water for irrigation
and reclamation purposes.
The Department’s plan for the Missouri
River Basin has always contemplated that
the Bureau of Reclamation would construct
upstream projects for storage and distribu¬
tion of irrigation water. I can see no ob¬
jection to authorization at this time of such
projects to supplement the authorization for
this Department’s work as now included in
the flood-control bill provided that the plan
of tjae Department is not restricted and that
money ceilings applicable to the projects
authorized and recommended are not cur¬
tailed.
Very truly yours,
E. Reybold,
Major General,
Chief of Engineers,
Before that letter was received. In an
informal discussion of the matter with
the Army engineers, I asked them about
the possibility of reducing the height of
the Garrison Dam. On that point, the
following radiogram was received from
the division engineer. General Crawford,
relayed through the oflfice of the Chief of
Engineers here in Washington:
Missouri River Division,
Omaha, Nebr., May 2.
Retelpcon., Beard to Sllchter, May 2, rela¬
tive to height and capacity of Garrison Reser¬
voir. Presently proposed height of Gar¬
rison Dam 210 feet above stream bed and
capacity at normal water-surface elevation
1,860 is 23,000,000 acre-feet according to
reservoir survey completed subsequent to
submission of the division engineer’s report
on Missouri River. Irrigable area at down¬
stream end of proposed Nesson irrigation
project is about elevation 1,800. To prevent
flooding this land by reservoir would require
lowering of normal pool to elevation 1,790.
This would reduce the height of dam to 150
feet and the reservoir capacity to about 7,-
000,000 acre-feet and completely destroy use¬
fulness of the Garrison Reservoir as a mul¬
tiple-purpose project.
Crawford.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
PLANS SrrPPLEMENT EACH OTHER
In the face of the information and en¬
gineer’s opinion set forth in the letter
and this statement, I have concluded not
to offer any amendment at this time to
propose the joint authorization, realiz¬
ing that it can still be done in the Senate
if that is deemed wise. Or, it may be
concluded by all interested that a sepa¬
rate authorization bill for the Reclama¬
tion’s part in the program will be best.
It will be clear, however, from this
record, that there is no objection by the
Army engineers to the program of
Reclamation for handling irrigation
water and for constructing and oper¬
ating irrigation works.
There is no basic conflict between the
two programs. One supplements the
other, and — speaking from the national
viewpoint — neither solves the national
problem without the other.
The situation is accurately described
by Budget Director Smith in a letter
which, I understand, he has addressed to
the chairman of the Committee on
Flood Control, under date of April 27,
1944, v/hich says :
The opening language of section 7 will al¬
low sufficient time before the actual initia¬
tion of construction of any of the projects
to permit compietion of the necessary re¬
lated investigations and Initiation of any
supplemental legislation.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I desire to
repeat what I said in my letter to the
Director of the Budget.
In every field of human endeavor prog¬
ress is made by concentrating upon and
starting with the points in agreement.
Time and developments frequently bring
solutions to points not originally in
agreement. Action at this time is urgent.
We can have action at this time.
There is no disagreement on works pro¬
posed for the tributaries. There is no
substantial disagreement on the dams
proposed for the main stem of the river
except as to Garrison, and on this the
letter of the Chief of Engineers states
the situation. Its construction will be
the earliest means of furnishing substi¬
tute storage that will permit the use of
Fort Peck water for hrigation and recla¬
mation purposes in both Montana and
North Dakota. And, as the Chief of En¬
gineer says:
The maximum potentialities of the other
main stem sites should also be developed if
practicable from engineering and economic
standpoints —
Including the Oahe, of which he speci¬
fically says:
If the feasibility is proven by detailed in¬
vestigations, it would certainly be wise to
construct the largest practicable reservoir at
this location.
Authorization of the Army’s program
at this time is basic. It should be sup¬
plemented with an authorization for the
program proposed by Reclamation. The
maximum possible storage of water
should be constructed on the main stem
and aiso on the tributaries. Floods will
be stopped on the lower Missouri and
protection will be given the upper basin
against prolonged drought.
The inauguration of this program for
the Missouri Valley, Mr. Chairman, will
mark an epoch in the development and
growth of the United States.
(Mr. CASE asked and was given per¬
mission to extend his remarks in the
Record. )
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Zimmer¬
man],
(Mr. ZIMMERMAN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks in the Record.)'
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly favor and urge the passage of
this bill. The great flood that originated
on the upper Missouri — one of the largest
and most destructive floods in our coun¬
try’s history — that has just passed down
the Missouri Valley and is now passing
down the lower Mississippi to the Gulf,
emphasizes the dire necessity and im¬
portance of passing this legislation at
this time.
The tragedi of the whole situation is
that we did not take action sooner. The
present flood disaster, and the one we
suffered in 1943, have not only brought
severe suffering, misery, and irreparable
damage to our civilian population in
these flooded areas, bwt they have seri¬
ously impaired our war effort at one of
the most critical times in our Nation’s
history.
Our flood-control program in recent
years, to which I made reference earlier
in this debate, has demonstrated to a cer¬
tainty that we can control the floods on
our great rivers as we have successfully
done on the lower Mississippi, and pro¬
tect the food basket of our Nation in the
years to come.
The people of the Tenth Congressional
District of Missouri, which I have the
honor to represent, are vitally interested
in the flood-control program authorized
by this bill, commonly referred to as the
“Pick plan.” I have carefully read the
two-volume report of the hearings held
on this bill, and I am convinced that if
this bill is passed and the program au¬
thorized by it is carried out, the Missouri
River Valley and the upper Mississippi
Valley will never again suffer the flood
disasters of this and last year.
I refer to the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers because they are the streams that
provoke concern for the people in my
section of the State of Missouri. The
Mississippi River flanks the eastern
boundary of the Tenth Congressional
District of Missouri which extends from
Cape Girardeau County south to the
Arkansas line. That part of our district
south of Cape Girardeau County is known
as the alluvial or delta section of the
valley, and is embraced in that stretch
of the river known as the lower Missis¬
sippi. That portion of our district did
not suffer greatly from the flood of 1943
or the flood that is now raging past our
borders, thanks for the splendid job our
Army engineers have done for the lower
Mississippi.
In Cape Girardeau, however, the peo¬
ple did not fare so well in 1943 and dur¬
ing the passing of this present flood,
which caused great damage to extensive
farm lands and to homes, business
houses, and industries in the beautiful
and progressive city of Cape Girardeau.
Mr. Chairman, what has been done by
this Government for the lower Missis-
4231
sippi Valley can be done for the rich Mis¬
souri Valley and other tributary streams
of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers,
and the time has come when we can no
longer afford to hazard these rich valleys
and the progressive, enterprising cities
located therein to the harrowing ex¬
periences through which they have just
passed. The improvements proposed
and authorized by this bill are economi¬
cally justified by our Army engineers,
and to longer delay these improvements
would be to pursue a policy of penny wise
and pound foolish.
Mr. Chairman, if I had time today 1
would like to discuss the importance of
navigation on the Mississippi River and
its tributaries to our future security and
prosperity. During the progress of this
war we all know the important role our
inland waterways have played in trans¬
porting goods and materials necessary for
out civilian needs and for the war effort.
But for these great arteries of commerce
our transportation facilities would have
been overtaxed and unable ta meet the
needs demanded of them. I do, how¬
ever, call your attention to the very able
and timely statement of the gentleman
from Mississippi, Chairman Whitting¬
ton, on this phase of the program pro¬
vided for in this bill.
We should pass this bill without delay
and clear the way for a program which
will bring security, protection, and pros¬
perity to the people in these great val¬
leys. I am glad to take this occasion to
again- express my appreciation of the
splendid leadership of the gentleman
from Mississippi, Chairman Whitting¬
ton, has given our country in working out
a comprehensive flood-control program
and for the faithful, constructive work
of the Committee on Flood Control, upon
which committee I had the honor to serve
with the chairman for 4 years.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fisher].
(Mr. FISHER asked and was given per¬
mission to revise and extend his remarks
in the Record.)
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, the
flood-control bill now before the House
includes provisions for eight soil-conser¬
vation projects in flood-control water¬
shed areas, one of which happens to be
in the district I represent. Those proj¬
ects are supported by comprehensive sur¬
veys made by the Soil Conservation Serv¬
ice in the Department of Agriculture.
They are made to integrate with and to
implement established flood-control
projects already authorized, and, as re¬
quired by law, have been reviewed by and
correlated with the plans of the Corps
of Engineers.
Since soil-conservation practices are
recognized as having a direct and im¬
portant relationship to the problem of
flood control, I should like to discuss that
particular phase of the legislation before
us.
When we realize that there are in this
country today 2,000 reservoirs, some
large and some small, that are com¬
pletely filled with silt that has been
washed down from the upstream water¬
sheds, coupled with the fact that other
thousands of reservoirs are being filled
4232
May 8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
that way as time goes on, the importance
of trying to control that silt at its source
becomes self-evident.
It is the problem of scientific soil-
conservation practices to prevent as
much of that waste of soil and water
as possible. In that way, such practices
contribute directly to the solution of the
problems of flood control and flood pre¬
vention.
As a matter of fact, on some of the
smaller streams the Soil Conservation
Service has been able to completely solve
the flood-water problem which had pre¬
viously existed. Dr. Hugh H. Bennett,
head of the Soil Conservation Service,
with his very able assistant, Mr. J. C.
Dykes, have in recent years directed
many very interesting and successful
surveys and experiments which serve to
show the influence that certain soil con¬
serving' practices may have on the ulti¬
mate problem of flood control.
When Dr. Bennett appeared before our
committee, he told an interesting and
true story of how, by the use of scientific
soil-conservation practices, floods have
been prevented on a stream in the State
of Washington. There have been no
overflows in the South Palouse River
there for the past 7 years, whereas before
the conservation job was carried out over
a large watershed area above the town of
Pullman, that stream overflowed each
year. That stream, like thousands of
others over the country, had been going
dry in late summer each year for 25 years.
During that time an occasional flood
would cause the stream to overflow, and
on occasions the floodwatei’s caused con¬
siderable property damage in the busi¬
ness section of the town of Pullman.
But the farmers in the watershed area
cooperated in a variety of conservation-
work practices. At first, 10,000 acres,
subject to severe erosion, were planted in
water-holding and soil-building vegeta¬
tion, including grasses and legumes. In
addition, much land was terraced and
contour cultivation was put into use.
Much of the overgrazing was deferred.
That combined activity on the part of
those farmers has changed that stream
from practically a dead stream, in late
summer, to a perennially flowing stream
for 7 successive years. During those 7
years the South Palouse has not gone
over its banks, and this year for the
seventh successive year it has continued
to run all through the summer, accord¬
ing to Dr. Bennett.
Other examples were cited, but this
example serves to illustrate what can be
done with this type of work in the way
of helping to prevent rather than con¬
trolling floodwaters. What was accom¬
plished in the cooperative effort at Pull¬
man can and should be undertaken in
hundreds of localities.
Mr. Chairman, we need to give more
and more attention to the importance of
going back up to where the water falls
as rain and there working with nature,
instead of against her, and there retain¬
ing and using the maximum possible
amount of that rainfall and making of
it a blessing instead of a curse.
We build dams and dikes in the lower
streams, as indeed we must do, but be¬
cause we do not do more, in an effort to
retain more of the rainfall at its source,
nature rebels against us. The flood-
waters sweep with all their fury against
the man-built dams and tremendous
damage often results from the overflows.
To be sure, soil-conservation practices
at their best will not solve the flood prob¬
lems. But we should not be content with
just building dams and dikes. We
should go up those streams and examine
the terrain and determine why so much
of the rainfall is escaping from the area
where it falls and why so much of the
topsoil is being washed downstream.
Mr. Chairman, at this point and while
I am on the general subject, I want to
briefly discuss the value of our soil from
the standpoint of our national wealth
and how for 300 years we have been
abusing and misusing much of it.
We have around 2,000,000,000 acres of
land in this country. That soil certainly
constitutes our most irreplaceable and
important natural resource. It is the
most indispensable natural resource that
we have any control over. It is too valu¬
able to be wasted if that waste can be
prevented. All through history the
strength and chatifecter of a people have
gone up or down with the soil. The
worth of land is in the few inches of top¬
soil that it has taken nature thousands
of years to build up. Once that topsoil is
washed away and gone it is gone for¬
ever. A nation with poor soil is a poor
nation. We simply cannot afford not
to hold on to that soil to the limit of our
ability.
Because we have not been careful in
the past and have often indulged in over-
grazing, over-cropping and misuse of our
lands, erosion of the soil by wind and
water has cut deeply into its natural
value and productivity, and to that ex¬
tent has effected the wealth and eco¬
nomic security of the entire Nation.
Already, Mr. Chairman, It is estimated
that the topsoil has been stripped from
282,000,000 acres, which is about 15 per¬
cent of our land area. And that same
soil is being daily blown and washed from
775,000,000 other acres.
About 3,000,000,000 tons of topsoil are
washed or blown away each year. That
soil if spread 12 inches thick would cover
one and one -half million acres every 12
months, as Dr. Bennett has pointed out.
Every year about half a million acres
of land are being ruined or vary seriously
damaged by wind and water erosion
brought on by improper land-use prac¬
tices.
We have left in this country about
462,0tlt),000 acres of really good farmland,
of which 342,000.000 acres are now under
cultivation. Of that 342,000,000 acres
now being tilled, only 62,000,000 acres are
not subject to erosion and, therefore, do
not need constant care and treatment.
There is much consolation in the fact
that in recent years farmers and ranch¬
men have become quite conscious of the
problem I have described. The Federal
Government first entered this field of
activity in 1929 and since then much
progress has been made.
As evidence of that progress, Mr.
Chairman, I might point out that there
are today 1,000 soil -conservation districts
in 45 States, each district being organ¬
ized as a governmental unit and oper¬
ated and controlled by local citizens.
Those districts include 570,000,000 acres,
and 2,563,695 farms and ranches partici¬
pate. *
But much remains to be done. In¬
deed, it has been estimated that 90 per¬
cent of the job remains to be done. Ifi
the United States there are, according
to the S. C. S., 200,000,000 gullies caused
by erosion that are deep enough to pre¬
vent agricultural machines from cross¬
ing, and which were not here when the
land was in its virgin condition.
Mr. Chairman, no nation can be strong
and rich long without a productive soil.
We as an intelligent people simply can¬
not afford to go on losing our most
precious and valuable resource. Much
progress has been made in conservation
practices and the future is encouraging.
But in my judgment the subject is so
important that it needs to be emphasized.
We build guns and planes and tanks
for defense against our foreign enemies.
In our own country, flood control,
through dams, dikes, levies, and sound
soil conservation, constitute our best de¬
fense against internal weakness and
insecurity.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Elliott].
Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Chairman, I be¬
lieve this bill, H. R. 4485, to be one of the
most important pieces of legislation that
will come before this House for a long
time. The benefits and protections car¬
ried in this bill will be of benefit through¬
out all the United States.
My State of California has a number
of flood conditions, although generally
speaking, when one speaks of California,
the question is asked, “Why, does it ever
rain there?” Because California lies
along the coast line and has a high
mountain area, there are tremendous
storms at short intervals, and on many
occasions great damage is done through¬
out the whole State, from the northern
end to the southern end. So the commit¬
tee, after 2 years of extensive hearings,
. with testimony being offered by various
groups coming from California, the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation, and the Corps of
Army Engineers, have tried to place in
these bills the projects in California that
would be considered to be flood-control
projects. Among them are the follow¬
ing:
The San Diego River Basin project
is authorized at an estimated cost of
$370,000.
Ventura River Basin, $1,600,000.
Santa Ana River Basin, $10,000,000.
Los Angeles-San Gabriel Basin and
Ballona Creek, $25,000,000.
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin,
$46,056,000, of which amount the expend¬
iture of $15,000,000 is authorized in this
bill.
The San Joaquin River contains sev¬
eral projects:
Kern River, $6,800,000.
Kaweah and Tule Rivers, in the San
Joaquin Valley, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Army engineers,
$4,600,000.
There is authorized $19,700,000 for
the project for flood control and other
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
purposes for the Kings River in Califor¬
nia, which destroys in flood years 125,000
acres or more at a time on account of
the tremendous run-off.
There is authorized for local flood pro¬
tection on various streams in the Merced
County stream group $1,300,000.
On the Lower San Joaquin River and
tributaries there is authorized to be ex¬
pended $8,000,000.
The program on the Los Angeles River
watershed is authorized, at a cost of $8,-
380,000.
Over $90,000,000 of construction is
authorized in this bill for the State of
California. There are one or two other
stream groups that were not included in
this bill owing to the fact that reports
were not available on them at the time
the bill was being drafted, but after this
bill passes the House we intend to see
that amendments with regard to them
are offered in the Senate, rather than
offer the amendments to the bill at this
time.
During the many days we sat in hear¬
ings in the past 2 years on these mat¬
ters, every opportunity was given every¬
one who wanted to appear before the
committee. The effort was to take care
of the desires and needs of everybody.
At the same time, inasmuch as this is a
post-war bill, I, speaking as one member
of the Committee on Flood Control, feel
that just as soon as manpower is avail¬
able, construction should start on all
these flood-control items throughout the
United States. Hardly a week goes by
but that you read in the paper of destruc¬
tion caused by floods, so I think this is
one of the emergencies of our Nation.
I do not look at this expenditure as
money wasted. I think it will return to
the Federal Government many, many
times more than the amount of money
carried in this authorization bill for flood
control throughout the United States.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Murdock].
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I had
in mind offering an amendment some
place in the latter part of the bill to
include one flood-control item vitally
needed in northern Arizona. I refer to
a proposed levee on the Little Colorado
at Holbrook, Ariz. Like the gentleman
from California, we did not have a com¬
plete report on this project, so I am
hopeful that it may be added in the Sen¬
ate if proper clearance is had. It is a
meritorious item which would not rim
into such a large appropriation as some
in our neighboring State.
The Little Colorado is a very treacher¬
ous stream. Early settlers along it
showed great courage in trying to handle
it. Of late years disastrous floods have
occurred at Holbrook and loss of life has
occurred there. It seems to me that it
is of such a vital need at this moment
that its construction should not be de¬
layed.
Mr. HARLESS of Arizona. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURDOCK. I yield to my col¬
league the gentleman from Ai’izona, who
is very well acquainted with the coura¬
geous spirit of the pioneers who settled
along that river.
Mr. HARLESS of Arizona. The gen¬
tleman says that there has been consid¬
erable loss of life and property on that
river. Does the gentleman know why
nothing has been done heretofore on that
project?
Mr. MURDOCK. Let me say that
much has been done on this project, but
it is not seen because it has not been
carried to completion. This is one of a
half dozen streams in Arizona we got
surveyed some years ago. I will not have
time to answer the question fully, but I
may say that the Army engineers have
surveyed the Little Colorado and have
made their recommendations. In this
particular case the matter was sent to
the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as
the Bureau of the Budget, and their reply
has been somewhat delayed. Just a mo¬
ment ago I spoke to the Commissioner
of Reclamation, Mr. Bashore, over the
phone, and he pointed out to me that
while there were some possible reclama¬
tion projects along this stream, both
above and below, those reclamation proj¬
ects would in nowise interfere with the
building of a levee for the protection of
the town of Holbrook. Of course, I feel
that in due course his report will be
favorable. I hope to hurry it along.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mi'. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURDOCK. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will say to the
gentleman that the reason his project
was not included is that no report had
been submitted to the Congress and re¬
ferred to the committee covering that
project. It is to the credit of all the
projects that the Bureau of Reclamation
has the privilege of reviewing and criti¬
cizing any report on flood control, just as
indicated by the gentleman’s conference
with the Commissioner, so that Congress
can have the benefit of the views of both
the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Corps of Engineers.
Mr. MURDOCK. I am glad to hear the
chairman say that and to know that it
is the practice. In the intermountain re¬
gion the control of streams for irrigation
is most vital and should have first con¬
sideration.
There are other projects such as the
building of a dam on the Bill Williams at
the Alamo site which should be author¬
ized in this bill but it does involve recla¬
mation. I might mention others, such as
a dam on the San Pedro, at the old
Charleston site badly needed for several
reasons besides flood control. I hope that
all of these meritorious flood-control
projects can be Anally and totally ap¬
proved. Of course, I will say further to
my colleague from Arizona, they must
be submitted to the Bureau of the Bud¬
get for its approval, and that follows in
point of time the surveys made by the
Army Engineers.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con¬
sent to revise and extend my remarks at
this point in the Record.
Tlie CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I yield the remainder of the time to the
gentleman from California [Mr.
VOORHIS].
4233
Mr. VOORHIS of California. Mr.
Chairman, I used to be a member of the
Committee on Flood Control and I would
like to join with the other Members who
have paid tribute to the chairman of that
committee for the efficiency with which
he conducts it and the job he has done
generally in connection with this very
important field of legislation. In this
bill there are included certain items
which have a very vital bearing on the
welfare of my own section of the United
States. Those items are on page 19 of
the bill, the Santa Ana River Basin and
the Los Angeles-San Gabriel Basin in
California. As I understand it, these
items will provide for the continuance of
the flood-control progi’ams already
begun in that area as soon as possible. I
only wish it were possible at this moment
to complete at least one structure there,
namely, the Santa Fe Dam, so that its
potentiality for reducing flood hazards
could be realized at the present time in¬
stead of it being left in a stage of partial
completion. I earnestly ask all possible
help from other Members in making pos¬
sible the installation of gates on that
dam and its completion as soon as pos¬
sible because it affects vitally the lives
of many people. The only purpose of
my asking for this time, however, was to
express and urge support for the neces¬
sity of this flood-control program and to
say that in Southern California, al¬
though our rivers do not exactly provide
sufficient water for large steamers to
come up to inland points, there are times
when our flood danger is veiy, very great
indeed, because we have large popula¬
tions living right at the foot of a very
steep mountain range and they are sub¬
ject to flash floods which in their de¬
structive character are quite as bad as
floods afflicting other parts of the Nation.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOORHIS of California. I yield.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentle¬
man remarked quite truly that flood con¬
trol is a national problem and that while
types of floods may differ, they occur
in every part of our common country,
as he has indicated, and it may not be
generally known, the Government of the
United States has probably expended
more to protect the Los Angeles area
than almost any other area of this size
anywhere in the United States, and de¬
servedly so, because the population and
property to be protected out there are
concentrated.
Mr. VOORHIS of California. Mr.
Chairman, I am much obliged to the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi. I had hoped
he would add that last remark, because
naturally some of us feel there is un¬
usual justification for the protection of
that area.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has expired.
All time has expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.. That the words “flood
control” as used in section 1 of the act of
June 22, 1936, shall be construed to Include
channel and major drainage Improvements,
and that hereafter Federal investigations
and Improvements of rivers and other water¬
ways for flood control and allied purposes
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 8
4234
shall be under the Jurisdiction of and shall
be prosecuted by the War Department under
the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and
Federal Investigations of watersheds and
measures for run-oS and water-flow retarda¬
tion and soil-erosion prevention on water¬
sheds shall be under the jurisdiction of
and shall be prosecuted by the Department
of Agriculture under the direction of the
Secretary of Agriculture, except as other¬
wise provided by act of Congress.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and,
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. Bulwinkle, Chairman of the Com¬
mittee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union, reported that the Commit¬
tee having had under consideration the
bill H. R. 4485, had come to no resolu¬
tion thereon.
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
SEIZURE OP MONTGOMERY WARD & CO.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the pro¬
visions of House Resolution 521, Seventy-
eighth Congress, the Chair appoints as
members of the Select Committee to In¬
vestigate the Seizure by the United
States, on April 26, 1944, of property of
Montgomery Ward & Co., the following
Members of the House: Mr. Ramspeck,
the chairman, Mr. Clark, Mr. Byrne, Mr.
Monroney, Mr. Dewey, Mr. Elston of
Ohio, and Mr. Curtis.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Simpson] may have
leave to extend his remarks in the Record
and to include two editorials, one from
the Pike County Republican and the
other from the Calhoun News.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matters referred to appear in the
Appendix.]
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Brown] have leave to
extend his remarks in the Record and to
include an article by Mark Sullivan in
the Washington Post of Monday, May 8.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California [Mr. Anderson] have
leave to extend his remarks in the
Record, with permission to include a copy
of a telegram which he sent to Mr. Wil¬
liam Davis, Chairman of the National
War Labor Board.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Miller], I ask unanimous consent that
he be permitted to yield back the 15 min¬
utes which were granted him under spe¬
cial orders for today and that he be
granted 15 minutes tomorrow at the con¬
clusion of the last special order now on
the record.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I may revise
and extend the remarks I made in the
Committee of the Whole today and in¬
clude therein certain excerpts and quo¬
tations and other material.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani¬
mous consent to revise and extend the
remarks I made in the Committee this
afternoon and to include therein certain
tables, letters, and other data relative to
the projects under discussion.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I may extend
in the Appendix of the Record Public
Law No. 138 of the Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, and, following that, an article from
the Toledo Blade, of Toledo, Ohio, under
the heading “No flood at Reno.”
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
CORRECTION OP RECORD
Mr.- VOORHIS of California. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to cor¬
rect the Record. In my speech in the
Record for April 25, at page 3771, in the
first paragraph, under the heading
“Finance, the mother of monopoly,” the
last sentence reads, “At this moment it is
seeking to enlarge that control by buying
up the stock of the Bank of America in
southern California.” The words “Bank
of America” are incorrect. It should
read “Citizens Bank” instead of “Bank of
America.”
I ask unanimous consent that the
Record be corrected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
There was no objection.
PETROLEUM AND AMERICA’S FUTURE
The SPEAKER. Under previous order
of the HousS the gentleman from Cali¬
fornia [Mr. VooRHis] is recognized for
30 minutes.
Mr. VOORHIS of California. Mr.
Speaker, in the Washington Sunday Star
for April 23 there appeared a very ex¬
cellent article on the editorial page writ¬
ten by Richard L. Stokes. It was en¬
titled “Near East Oil Pot Boils.” In the
course of this article, Mr. Stokes, in dis¬
cussing various attitudes toward the
proposed near eastern pipe line, wrote
the following significant paragraphs:
Another school of opinion contributed the
notion that the day has come when the
American people will have to reconsider
some ancient terms of opprobrium, such as
“Imperialism,” “dollar diplomacy,” and
“cartelism.” As an instance of a reform that
backfired, these observers cite Theodore
Roosevelt’s trust-busting of Standard Oil.
According to their view, his “big stick”
broke up the only American unit capable of
holding its own in the savage jungle of in¬
ternational competition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say in the
first place that I for one do not believe
that the day has come when the Amer¬
ican people have to abandon the hope
that our economic life can be carried on
under circumstances offering hope and
opportunity to the small man, free of
the domination of a handful of giant
financial and industrial corporations.
But I cannot blind myself to the fact
that Mr. Stokes is probably correct that
the school of opinion which he outlines
is present in our country and possibly
gaining strength and influence. I sup¬
pose a time of war like the present in¬
evitably has that result.
The first thing I have to say today
therefore in introducing a speech upon
the question of oil is that there are cer¬
tain very far-reaching implications in¬
volved for the future of our govern¬
mental policy, should the school of opin¬
ion to which Mr. Stokes refers have its
way. Other nations have passed through
this same stage of development. Par¬
ticularly has Great Britain done so.
Britain’s solution has been, roughly, to
accept monopolies and then to do the
next best thing, namely, to assert the es¬
sential public interest in any field of in¬
dustry which is monopolized by having
the government itself either exercise
stringent regulation or actually purchase
an interest in the enterprise. The latter
method has been adopted by the British
with regard to companies owning rich
oil resources outside of the British Em¬
pire. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., the
largest of all these enterprises, has for
the last 30 years had a majority of its
stock owned by the British Government.
In turn the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. owns
approximately a quarter of the stock of
the Iraq Petroleum Co. which controls a
number of important oil fields in the
Near East. The British Government’s
original investment in the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Co. has increased thirteenfold in
value. Dividends at an average rate of
15 percent yer year have been realized,
and the original investment has been re¬
turned to the British people five times
over. These figures are too significant to
be overlooked. Corresponding action by
the American Government in case we
must throw up the sponge in attempting
to escape the shackles of monopoly upon
our industries would have a very sig¬
nificant effect so far as the repayment
of our huge national debt is concerned.
More important still, however, is the
question of economic power during the
next 50 years. In my judgment, people
who say that our Government should
underwrite all the risks and pay the costs
of the most hazardous parts of these
undertakings, which certainly the Middle
Eastern pipe line is, are really advocat¬
ing that the American people must un-
derwi’ite private interests around the
Office of Budget and Finance 7Sth.-2nd» No, 22
Legislative Reports and Service Section
DIGEST OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(Issued May 10, 19^^» for actions of Tuesday, May 9. 1944)
(For staff of the Department only)
CONTENTS
A. A. A .
Flood relief, .
....6
Nnmi nati nn. ...........
g
Appropriations.,,
.6,14
Food adm. (general) . .
Price control. .
Congressional organiza-
Food- distribution. . .
....4
Rationing . . . . . .
2,23
tion .
. 25
• Food -pppduction .
.4,23
School- lunch program.
..13
Dairy industry, .
w^si/O# • • f • *•»
...21
So il conservation. . . .
Debt limit .
Housing. . .
SiiTT^InR cnmmnH i t-i ft <5 . .
- .1 li
S’^ ectrification.
. 16
Irrmort R. .
. .^20
m.v.A .
Exports .
La-tin— America. ......
. . .11
Tpi t. . .
Farm Security...
. 3
Legislation. .
Transportation .
Fire control....
. 24
Lftnt^— 1 pa.RP. . .
_ n
22
Flood control...
• • • • • X } xo
■ ‘ HOUSE
1. FLOOD CONTROL. Passed with amendments H. R, 4425, the Whittington omnibus
flood control bill (pp. 4221-314). Agreed to several amendments authorizing
preliminary examinations and surveys of Choctavrhatchee River, Fla,; Deep Red
Run, Little Elk Cree^, Salt Fork, Elm Creek, .Saddle Mountain, and Turkey
Creek, Okla.; Susquehanna River, N.Y. ; Grand and Moreau Rivers, S.Dak. ;'and the
Hocking River, Ohio (pp, 431O73). I^.ep* Hagen, Minn,, discussed flood damage
to farm lands and urged passage of this bill (pp. 4310-1). Reps, feankin and
Whittington, . Miss. , Gore, Pa., Kefauver, Tenn, , Miller, Conn., Jackson, Wash.,
and others discussed the effect of this bill uuon TVA operations (pp. 422^91,
4312-3,4319-21). ‘ "
2. RATIONING; FOOD AIMINISTEATION. R§. Jenkins Ohio., criticized the rationing
administration and urged centralization of food administration under one head
(pp. 4221-2). _ ■
3. FARM SECURITY, The Cooley Committee submitted, a report pursuant to H.Res.ll9,
authorizing an investigation,, of FSA (H.Rept. l430) (p, 4324), *
4. RABBITS, Agriculture Committee reported vrithout amendment H, R. 44o4, to trans¬
fer Government activities in connection with domestic rabbits to this Depart -
ment (H. Rept. l43l)' (4324). . . *
5. DEBT LBOT, Ways and Means Committee reported with amendment H, R, 4464, to in¬
crease the U. S. debt lim-it _(H, Rept. 1429). (p. 4324),
6. FLOOD RELIEF; APPROPRIATIONS. Received from the President a proposed pro.vision
to continue until June 30, 19^5* availability of the $15,000,000 flood-
relief appropriation in the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act '(Public Law l40,
72th Cong.) (H.Doc. 577)* To Appropriations Committee, (p. 4324.) ,
SENATE
7* EXPORTS. Military Affairs Committee reported with amendments S. 1826, to amend
Sec. 6 of the act of July 2, 1940, relating to the exportation of certain com¬
modities, and to continue the act in effect ( S. Rept. 865) (p. 4255)*
g. NOMINATION. Public Lands and Surveys Committee reported* favorably the nomina¬
tion of Clarence L. For sling to be Director of Grazings Interior Department
(pp. 4526-7)* Sen. McCarran, Nev. , discussed the nomination (pp. 4256-7).
9. PRICE CONTROL. Sen. Bankhead, Ala., submitted two amendments which he intends tc
b-" propose to H. R. 4647, to- eorttjnd' th-e- Emergency Price Control. Act (p. 4257)*
- - V .
. j
10. FLOOD COOTROL. Received th'e* -War -Department's review of reports on the Red
River of the North, Minn, an-d -N.- -Dak. , with respect to, .f.Lop.d .cp.ntrol on the
Sheyenne River ( S. Doc. 193')’ ‘(p* 4258). . . . . , .
. »
» • ‘ . i
' ‘ ^ • * . , . . , * .
11. LEND-LEASE, Sen. Butler, Nebr,-,- -discussed -lend-lease expenditures in Latin-
Amef ica ‘(p. 4258). . . .
‘V * . ^
BILLS INTRODUCED ’ ' ^
12. TRANSPORTATION. By Rep. Priest, Tenn.* , H. R, 477^, to amend the Transportatior
Act of 1940 so as to extend for 4 years the life of the Board of Investigatior
and Research, established by section 301 of such act. To Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, (p.' 4324.)
13’ SCHOOt-LUNCH PROGRAl'I. By Rep. Outlani,” Calif. , H. R. 4777, to assist the State
to establish and maintain school- lunch’ programs. To the Education Committee.
(p. 4324.) Remarks o.f author (p. 4280) ..‘v •
< * • * .
l4.. SURPLUS COMMODITIES; APPROPRIATIONS. By Rep. Murray, Wise., H. R. 4781, to
provide for making available, until expended, - sums appropriated pursuant to
section 32 of the act entitled "An act to amend the Agripul txxral Adjustment
Act, and for other purposes," approved August 24, 1935* lo Agriculture
Committee, (p.. 4324.) • ' . . ,
ITH^IS IN APPENDIX
15. HOUSING. Speech in the House by Rep. Dirkseh, Ill., urging Liquidation of
HOLC and including ’a letter to him and a news release on this subject
(pp. A2401-2).
16. A. A. A.; R.E.A. ; S.C. S. Speech in the House by Sen. Thomas, Okla. , commending
these and other New Deal agencies (pp. A2402-'3)*
17. LEGISLATION. Extension of remarks of Son, Barkley, Ky, , including a "digest
of legislation enacted" by the 7Sth Cong,,- 1st session (pp, .A2403~6),
18. TAXATION, Extension of remarks of Rep, Hagen,- Minn,, commending passage of
H, R, 4646, providing for a simplified income tax (pp. A2423-“4),
19. T.T.A. Rep, PrieH, Tenn., inserted p book review of . Chairman, Lilionthal' s
book, T.y.A, — Democracy on the March (p, A2425).
Speech in the House by Rep. Sabath, Ill., including a Chicago Times edi¬
torial, commending TVA and discussing Chairman Lilionthal' s book (pp, A2434-5) ,
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
marks in the Record and include therein
a newspaper article.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn¬
sylvania?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in the Record and include there¬
in an article by Constantine Brown en¬
titled “This Changing World,” that ap¬
peared in the Washington Evening Star
of May 6, 1944.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi¬
nois?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
THE LATE THOMAS H. BALL
Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and ex¬
tend my remarks.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMAS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
I desire to announce to the House the
passing on yesterday of a distinguished
Texan,, a former Member of this House,
Col. Thomas H. Ball, of Houston. Colonel
Ball was 85 years old when he passed
away. He lived a long and useful life.
Not only has the State of Texas lost one
of its outstanding citizens but the Na¬
tion has suffered a loss. Colonel Ball
served in the House from 1897 to 1903.
This short sketch of his life indicates his
outstanding and various talents;
Thomas Henry Ball, a Representative from
Texas; born in Huntsville, Walker County,
Tex., January 14, 1859; attended private
schools and was graduated from Austin Col¬
lege, Sherman, Tex., in 1876; studied law at
the University of Virginia at Charlottesville,
Va.; was admitted to the bar in 1886, and
commenced practice In Huntsville, Tex.;
mayor of Huntsville, 1887-93; chairman of
the Democratic executive committee of
Walker County, 1884r-96; delegate to all State
conventions from 1886 to 1924 with three
exceptions; delegate to the Democratic Na¬
tional Convention at Chicago in 1892, and
at New York City in 1924; elected as a Demo¬
crat to the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, Fifty-
seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses and
served from March 4, 1897, to November 16,
1903, when he resigned; resumed the practice
of his profession; general counsel for the
State council of defense during the World
War; was employed as general counsel for the
port commission of the Houston harbor and
ship channel, and was a resident of Houston,
Tex.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in the Record on two subjects and
include therein certain statements and
excerpts.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to include in the re¬
marks I intend to make today excerpts
from two editorials.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
^-^'There was no objection.
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RESERVOIRS.
LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD
CONTROL
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill (H. R. 4485)
authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for
flood control, and for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for further con¬
sideration of the bill H. R. 4485, with Mr.
Bulwinkle in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 2. That section 3 of the act approved
June 22, 1936 (Public, No. 738, 74th Cong.),
as amended by section 2 of the act approved
June 28, 1938 (Public, No. 761, 75th Cong.),
shall apply to all works authorized in this act,
except that for any channel improvement or
channel rectification project provisions (a),
(b), and (c) of section 3 of said act of June
22, 1936, shall apply thereto, and except as
otherwise provided by law: Provided, That
the authorization for any flood-control proj¬
ect herein adopted requiring local coopera¬
tion shall expire 5 years from the date on
which local Interests are notified in writing
by the War Department of the requirements
of local cooperation, unless said interests
shall within said time furnish assurances sat¬
isfactory to the Secretary of War that the
required cooperation will be furnished.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word, and ask
unanimous consent to proceed out of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, there
is a growing conviction among a large
part of our population, as well as a good
many Members of Congress, that the ad¬
ministration is playing politics with food.
Either this is true or a top-heavy bu¬
reaucracy is responsible for the delays
that have taken plage in removing
canned vegetables and meats from
rationing.
During last December and January it
is reported that both the Office of Price
Administration and a large trade asso¬
ciation made a careful survey of the
quantities of home-canned goods on
pantry shelves and the quantities on the
retailers’ shelves throughout the country.
It was known at that time that cannery
warehouses were filled to overflowing
with last year’s packs, particularly of
canned vegetables. There is no known
reason why rationing of these canned
goods should not have been discontinued
at that time.
Similarly, governmental authorities
knew many months ago just what the
supply situation of livestock was. So far
4281
as I have been able to ascertain, there
has been no marked change in the sup¬
ply situation of livestock between Janu¬
ary 1 and the present time. On the con¬
trary, information I have been able to
obtain indicates that January slaughter¬
ing was at its peak. The question natu¬
rally arises. Why was meat rationing not
lifted at that time? It should have been
done.
An article appearing in Collier’s maga¬
zine of May 6, 1944, written by Mr.
Chester Bowles, Administrator of the
Office of Price Administration, raises a
very peculiar situation. This article was
published a week after the order was
issued removing most meats and canned
vegetables from rationing. In this arti¬
cle Mr. Bowles stated that there would
be some relief of meat rationing “in
1945 — with luck— and possibly end when
the war in Europe is over,” and that ra¬
tioning of processed foods would not
cease until “the war in the Pacific ends.”
Yet 1 week before his statement appeared
he issued an order removing most meats
and canned vegetables from all rationing
restrictions. The Office of Price Admin¬
istration should completely remove all
ration restrictions on steaks and roasts
of beef now. It should have been done
last January.
Let me ask what can be the reason for
these inconsistent statements and these
inconsistent orders. Is it possible that
Mr. Bowles is only a figurehead and that
there is a hidden power to which he must
respond? If so, who is it and what is it?
This is convincing proof that someone
is responsible for playing politics with
our food supply.
Several months ago the Republican
Congressional Food Study Committee
advocated openly and publicly that the
administration of all food activities
should be centered in one administrative
agency.
Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JENKINS. Yes. I am glad to
yield to my colleague and neighbor.
Mr. BREHM. I feel confident that if
the gentleman’s suggestion had been fol¬
lowed and the food authority had been
put under one head that there would not
now be spoiling so many thousand
pounds of butter, cheese, and other food.
I trust that those responsible for the food
administration may yet follow the sug¬
gestions of the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JENKINS. The gentleman’s ob¬
servation is very timely and quite in
point.
The Committee on Agriculture of the
House of Representatives agreed with
the Republican Congressional Pood Study
Committee and reported favorably a bill
which had been introduced by the gen¬
tleman from South Carolina. Represen¬
tative Fulmer, who is the chairman of
that committee. The sentiment of the
country was then, and is now, over¬
whelmingly favorable to the enactment
of this legislation. The legislation
would have been enacted except for ad¬
ministration opposition.
I am informed that the War Pood Ad¬
ministration release of May 4 Indicates
that it did not even know that these items
were to be eliminated from the ration list
4282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
on May 1. Where is the hidden power
in Government that is responsible for
playing politics with our food supply?
In other words, on May there came
out a release from the War Food Ad¬
ministration which indicated that the
Administration knew nothing about an
order that had been issued on the 1st of
May. So I repeat there can be no ques¬
tion but that this whole food program
is being administered by some organiza¬
tion or individual or power which is
anonymous and which issues orders to
Mr. Bowles and Mr. Jones.
Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JENKINS. Yes. I am glad to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
fi’om Minnesota.
Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. I am'
glad the gentleman called the attention
of the House to the situation with refer¬
ence to Mr. Jones of the War Food Ad¬
ministration. The President has been
away for 4 weeks and I am just won¬
dering who directed Mr. Bowles to re¬
move 85 percent of meat from the ration
list and to take these other things off the
list?
Mr. JENKINS. In answer to the gen¬
tleman’s question, I say I wish I knew.
I hope these remarks of mine will bring
an answer from somebody connected
actively with the Food Administration.
I see that Cecil B. Dickson, a prominent
news reporter in an article appearing in
the Hartford (Conn.) Times of a day or
two ago says the action of President
Roosevelt in ordering Chester Bowles the
Director of Price Administration, to re¬
move all meat except beefsteaks and beef
roasts from rationing was considered a
master stroke by inside New Dealers.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. JENKINS
received permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
;rhe pro forma amendments were with¬
drawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 3. In order to fully utilize dam and
reservoir areas under the control of the War
Department, the Chief of Engineers, under
the supervision of the Secretary of War, is
authorized to construct, maintain, and oper¬
ate recreation, conservation, and other fa¬
cilities thereat advantageous to the interests
of the United States, or to permit the con¬
struction, maintenance, and operation of such
facilities. The Secretary of War is author¬
ized to grant leases of lands, structures, or
facilities in said areas for such periods and
upon such terms as he may deem reasonable.
All moneys I’eceived for such leases or priv¬
ileges shall be deposited in the Treasury of
the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a committee amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re¬
port the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Whittington: On pages 2 and 3. strike out
all of section 3, and insert in lieu thereof,
the following:
"Sec. 3. The Chief of Engineers under the
supervision of the Secretary of War, is au¬
thorized to construct, maintain, and oper¬
ate park and recreational facilities In reser¬
voir areas under control of the War Depart¬
ment, and to permit the construction, main¬
tenance, and operation of such facilities.
The Secretary of War is authorized to grant
leases of land's, structures, or facilities in
reservoir areas for such periods and upon
such terms as he may deem reasonable : Pro¬
vided, That licenses to Federal, State, or local
governmental agencies for the use of areas
suitable for public park and recreational
purposes may be granted without monetary
consideration when the Secretary of War de¬
termines such action to be in the public
interest. All moneys received for leases or
privileges shall be deposited in the Treasury
of the United States as miscellaneous re¬
ceipts."
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
during the course of general debate, a
number of questions were asked with re¬
spect to the meaning of section 3, and
particularly with respect to the meaning
of the word “facilities” in line 25 of sec¬
tion 3. In response to the questions
asked, as well as in response to some ap¬
prehensions manifested, it was stated by
the committee that the purpose of sec¬
tion 3 was to authorize the Chief of Engi¬
neers in and around the pools, the per¬
manent pools that are provided in reser¬
voirs authorized for flood control, to
make leases for recreational purposes
only. It is in order to remove any ap¬
prehensions with respect to reclamation
or power in connection with the word
“facilities” and in order to make more
certain that it is the purpose of section 3
only to authorize the Chief of Engineers
to provide for recreational facilities that
this amendment is offered as a substi¬
tute for section 3. I may say in this con¬
nection, Mr. Chairman, that under exist¬
ing law the Secretary of War is author¬
ized to make leases for 5 years, but that
in many cases citizens who came to these
lakes or these permanent pools would
like to have longer leases for any resi¬
dences or any places of abode they estab¬
lished along the lakes. This substitute
is intended more definitely to limit the
purpose for which the original section 3
of this bill was intended.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will be glad
to yield to the gentleman from South
Dakota.
Mr. CASE. Does the amendment as
offered by the committee drop the word
“conservation” altogether? My reason
for asking that is I understood the word
“conservation” is in there to make pos¬
sible the establishment of wildlife refuges
and things of that character for the con¬
servation of property and wildlife.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is fair to say
this substitute does eliminate the word
“conservation.” I personally can see no
objection to its inclusion after “recrea¬
tion,” because that might be applicable
in some cases. But the primary meaning
of the section was for recreation, as
stated.
Mr. CASE. I wonder if the chairman
would feel free to modify the amend¬
ment to that extent to put in the words
“wildlife conservation” after “recrea¬
tion”?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I would like to keep faith with the com¬
mittee. I submitted this amendment to
the committee and I was authorized by
the committee to submit this as a sub¬
stitute. Frankly I would say with re¬
spect to the wildlife feature that my
thought is, with all deference, that these
particular pools, from my observation
and from my inspection, are really lakes,
and those lakes provide for recreation
and Ashing facilities. It might be, it is
possible, the gentleman may know more
about the wildlife problem than I do, but
it might be that the restrictions with
respect to wildlife propagation might im¬
pair the recreational facilities. Person¬
ally I trust that the gentleman will think
about that matter and I trust he will
appreciate my position. I am not in a
position to accept that amendment. My
thought is this, further, that if after a
further consideration of any and all the
projects here it appears that you would
like to provide for wildlife conservation
and it could be done properly, that it
might be embraced in another body. I
have gone as far as I am authorized to go.
Ml’. CASE. If I may comment just a
bit further, the Izaak Walton League,
with national headquarters in Chicago,
did adopt a resolution which was rather
critical of this bill on the ground that it
feared some of these reservoirs would
destroy wildlife.
The answer that some of us individually
have made, and the answer of the chap¬
ters of the organization in my State
which they have made in their endorse¬
ment of the bill has been that section 3,
so far from destroying wildlife, is a
means of protecting it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi has expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASE. In that case it was sug¬
gested that the Fish and Wildlife Service
could cooperate with the War Depart¬
ment through the language in section 3,
to propagate fish, establish pools or bay¬
ous where feed might be planted for mi¬
gratory waterfowl, and things of that
sort. I would be a little disappointed if
I felt that the amendment destroyed that.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. V/hile I am not
as much of a sportsman as the gentleman
from South Dakota [Mr. Case], and oth¬
ers who live in that State, I would say
that the language “reci:eational” ought
to embrace the aims and purposes of the
Izaak Walton League. It may be that this
language would be susceptible to the in¬
terpretation that the gentleman has in
mind. I would not say that it would not
be correct, in proper cases. But, I would
say that for the present it is intended for
recreation and park facilities, but I think
the language is broad enough to embrace
what the gentleman had in mind if the
Secretary of War so agreed.
Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Will the gentle¬
man yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield.
Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Where are you
going to get the money?
Mr. WHI'TTINGTON. I would say we
would get the money for the reservoirs
authorized in this bill from the same
source that we got the money when we
authorized the building of some 13 of the
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
4283
finest reservoirs for flood-control pur¬
poses that I know of in the United States,
in the great Commonwealth of Ohio. I
know of no finer recreational facilities
than some of those that have been con¬
structed in those reservoirs that were
constructed along the Muskingum River
in Ohio.
Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Where did you
get that money?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. We got it from
the taxpayers of the United States, money
that the taxpayers wanted expended to
protect their lives and their property.
Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Did you get it
from the taxpayers or is it still to come
from the taxpayers?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It might be
both, if that will satisfy the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
The question is on the amendment of¬
fered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows;
Sec. 4. That the Secretary of War is au¬
thorized to sell to States, municipalities, pri¬
vate concerns, or individuals, at such prices
and on such terms as he may deem reason¬
able, for domestic and industrial uses sur¬
plus water that may be available at any reser¬
voir under the control of the War Depart¬
ment. All moneys received from such sales
shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word, and I ask unani¬
mous consent to extend my remarks and
Include therein certain documents.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOTT. I also ask unanimous
consent, Mr. Chairman, to speak out of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have to¬
day introduced a bill providing for the
deportation of Japanese aliens imme¬
diately upon the conclusion of hostilities
between the United States and Japan.
The bill is short, and I am going to read
it to you:
A bill providing for the deportation of
Japanese aliens
Be it enacted etc. —
Section 1. All persons in the United States
who on the 7th day of December 1941 were
subjects of the Government of Japan and
who became enemy aliens by reason of the
declaration of war between the United States
and Japan, are hereby defined and declared
to be undesirable aliens and subject to de¬
portation under the statutes of the United
States providing for the deportation of un¬
desirable aliens.
Sec. 2. Within 30 days after the approval
of this act the Attorney General of the
United States shall proceed to prepare war¬
rants for the deportation of all undesirable
aliens as defined in section 1 of this act.
Such warrants shall be executed and such
aliens deported immediately upon the cessa¬
tion of hostilities between the United States
and Japan.
Sec. 3. No undesirable alien as defined in
this act, who has been interned as an enemy
alien in the United States, shall be released
from Internment except for the purpose of
deportation under warrant as herein pro¬
vided.
Sec. 4. All acts or parts of acts in conflict
■with this act are hereby repealed.
I venture to say that if a poll should be
taken today of all the people in the
United States to determine whether they
desired to permit alien Japanese to re¬
main in the United States after the con¬
clusion of hostilities, the verdict would
be at least 90 percent against allowing
them to remain. On the Pacific coast, I
would say that the verdict would be al¬
most 100 percent for their deportation
after the war.
The blood of our sons who were mur¬
dered at Pearl Harbor, and tortured and
starved on Bataan and Corregidor, the
thousands who have met death in, the
Solomons, the Marshalls, the Gilberts, on
Attu, and other theaters of operation in
the Pacific, cry out against this barbarous
nation and the barbarous nationals who
comprise it. I believe the people of this
Nation do not want the aliens of that
nation to remain in the United States
when the war is over.
That being the case, Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me obvious that appropriate
legislation on the subject should be en¬
acted now, because unless legislation of
this kind is enacted during the war it
will very likely never be enacted at all.
That is the reason I have introduced this
bill now, while the people are still free
from the propaganda which will beset
them after the war.
You all recall what happened after the
First World War. There was an ava¬
lanche of propaganda, of manufactured
sentimentalism throughout the United
States which was deliberately calculated
to make the people believe that those
who had so recently been our enemies
had become our brothers immediately
upon the cessation of hostilities, and that
they could never be persuaded by their
leader to wage war on us again.
To such an extent did this propaganda
go, and such effect did It have, that it
even persuaded the people of the United
States almost Immediately after the close
of World War No. 1 to scrap their Navy
and to neglect the defenses of their own
country. The same propaganda will be
launched again after this war.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this
bill has to do only with Japanese aliens
in this country. It does not have to do
'with Japanese born in the United States,
who by virtue of their birth are citizens
of this country. That is an entirely dif¬
ferent phase of the Japanese problem,
and one which must be handled sepa¬
rately and in a different way.
That phase of the question, I may say,
is now being studied, and in due course
an equitable and constitutional solution
of the problem will be reached and pre¬
sented to the Congress. That phase in¬
volves the loyalty of certain individual
American citizens born of Japanese
parentage, and presents a most impor¬
tant and vital constitutional question.
No American desires to harm another
American, simply because he was born of
Japanese parentage, provided he is in
fact, a loyal American, and no American
will harm him. But the disloyalty of a
vast number of Japanese- Americans has
been so completely demonstrated during
this war, that the question as to them
must be faced and must be solved — and
it will be solved by just and proper legis¬
lation within the four corners of our
Constitution.
In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, the
question of the Japanese alien remain¬
ing in this country after the war is here
now for solution. There is no constitu¬
tional question involved here. There is
no question of injustice. The people af¬
fected by this bill are highly undesirable
enemy aliens. They came here solely by
our sufferance. That sufferance is ex¬
hausted. We want them here no longer.
We propose to send them back where
they came from at the earliest practi¬
cable moment.
I trust very much that the Committee
on Immigration and Naturalization will
proceed to the immediate consideration
of this bill so that it may be reported to
the House and voted upon at this session
of the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Oregon has expired.
The pro forma amendment was with¬
drawn.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. Mr. Chair¬
man, I offer an amendment, which I send
to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Robinson of
Utah: Amend section 4 at line 15, page 3 by
adding the following: "Provided, however.
That, in the case of any reservoir located
west of the 97th meridian, the right to the
use of waters for such purposes shall be es¬
tablished, and the repayment of costs allo¬
cated thereto shall be provided for, pur¬
suant to the provisions of the Federal Recla¬
mation laws.”
(By unanimous consent, Mr. ROBIN¬
SON of Utah was granted permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. Mr. Chair¬
man, section 4 of this bill authorizes the
Secretary of War to sell for domestic and
industrial uses surplus water available at
any reservoir under his control. There
is no requirement in the section that the
right to use such water for domestic and
industrial purposes shall be established
in conformity with local law, nor does
there seem to be any such requirement
elsewhere in Federal statutes relating to
projects under the control of the Secre¬
tary of War. Uses for domestic and in¬
dustrial purposes are ones that under the
system of water law prevailing in the
Western States have validity only to the
extent that they are established or recog¬
nized under the provisions of the law of
the place of use. They are in this regard
like the right to make beneficial con¬
sumptive use of*water for irrigation.
Section 6, as amended here today, in
dealing with irrigation rights is intended
to provide for the establishment of those
rights in conformity with the require¬
ments of the Federal Reclamation law.
That law provides for proceeding in con¬
formity with State laws for the estab¬
lishment of the right to use water for ir¬
rigation and purposes incidental thereto.
As a matter of principle, I believe that
similar conformity should have been re¬
quired in connection with the sale of
rights to use water for domestic and in¬
dustrial purposes under section 4 of this
bill. As the section now stands, the
4284 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
exercise of authority under it, if unchal¬
lenged, will amount to an assertion by the
Federal Government of a claim of owner¬
ship to water for domestic and industrial
purposes, without regard to local law.
Even though the reservoir by which such
surplus waters are developed are con¬
structed and operated under the consti¬
tutional power of the Federal Govern¬
ment, the assertion of ownership of such
surplus waters for domestic and indus¬
trial purposes would be an assertion that
Western States would and should regard
as prejudicial to their claims of jurisdic¬
tion with respect to waters arising in
their States. The possibility of such
assertions could have been avoided by a
relatively short amendment requiring the
establishment of rights for such purposes
in conformity with local law, in the man¬
ner provided in the Federal reclamation
law. I have not pressed harder for such
an amendment because so far as the
Western States are concerned, I am not
aware of any instance where surplus
waters will be available for disposition
under section 4. If I am wrong in this,
this section, as a matter of principle, re¬
quires amendment.
Mr. ROCKWELL. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
(By unanimous consent Mr. ROCK-
WElii was granted permission to extend
his remarks in the Record.)
Mr. ROCKWELL. Mr. Chairman, I
hope the committee will accept the
amendment offered by the Congressman
from Utah, and also the ones the com¬
mittee will offer to section 6. These
amendments do not interfere with flood
control in the slightest. Their purpose
is to tie the reclamation part of the bill
to the reclamation laws as we now have
them.
In the Colorado Legislature, where I
served for many terms spaning a period
of 25 years, we had a custom by which,
when a bill had multiple purposes, it was
referred in turn to each of the commit¬
tees specializing on each purpose. In
other words, had this bill been before our
legislature the flood-control committee
would have prepared the part having to
do with flood control as they have done.
Then it would have been rereferred to
the irrigation and reclamation commit¬
tee for preparation of the purposes hav¬
ing to do with the disposal of the so-
called surpluses of water stored in these
dams and reservoirs. This latter com¬
mittee, of which I am a member, would
have considered only thq part of the bill
having to do with the disposal of water
for irrigation and domestic and indus¬
trial uses. The result would have been
generally what we are trying to accom¬
plish by these amendments, namely, to
make no innovations or changes in our
fundamental reclamation laws, but to tie
this new program to these present laws
that have been developed over the past
50 years.
In the States west of the ninety-
seventh meridian, water is necessary for
the growing of. crops as well as for do¬
mestic and industrial uses. Men fought
over it in the early days and only after
years of litigation and trouble have the
States in cooperation with the Depart¬
ment of the Interior worked out a satis¬
factory program. Let us not start a new
program that will make trouble, misun¬
derstanding, and serious legal difficulties.
These amendments do not affect flood
control and will generally satisfy our
western water users.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated yesterday,
the purpose, of section 4 in no way in¬
volves reclamation. With all deference
to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Robin¬
son], the amendment is utterly inap¬
plicable and out of place at this point.
Under existing law if a reservoir is
authorized and if there is a lack of water
for human consumption or for the nec¬
essary enterprises in the area the local
people are authorized to supplement the
cost of that reservoir where the water
table, for instance, is low and share by
putting up money in the first instance
in the case of the construction of the
reservoir. It happens in many cases
that there is a need, as the War Depart¬
ment has reported to the committee, for
water for human consumption because
of the drying up of wells. If that need
occurs in Ohio, or if that need occurs
in Massachusetts, or in any other State,
instead of requiring the local people in
the first instance where there is ina¬
bility in many cases to issue bonds and
to incur large indebtedness to share in
the construction of that reservoir, the
purpose of section 4 is to enable the
Government, the Secretary of War, and
the Chief of Engineers to make a dispo¬
sition of water there for human con¬
sumption or for any proper industrial
use. It strikes me, with all deference
and in all kindness, that the amendment
offered by my friend is utterly inappli¬
cable and would defeat the very purpose
for which section 4 is intended. I sub¬
mit, Mr. Chairman, that if it be proper
to provide for the storing of waters for
reclamation to grow crops in the arid
West, with which I am in sympathy, it
ought to be all the more in order to pro¬
vide for the storing of waters for human
consumption.
I trust the amendment will be de¬
feated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
^from Utah,
, The amendment was rejected. ^
^ The Clerk read as follows : \
Sec. 5. Hereafter, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary ,of War to prescribe regulations
for the use of storage available for flood con¬
trol or navigation at all reservoirs constructed
wholly or in part with Federal funds pro¬
vided on the basis of such purposes, and the
operation of any such project shall be in
accordance with such regulations.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to interrogate
the distinguished gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi, chairman of the committee, on
the intent and purpose of this provi¬
sion.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentleman
from Mississippi will be glad to answer
his colleague in any way he can.
Mr. RANKIN. We are somewhat dis¬
turbed as to whether or not this provi¬
sion will interfere with the operation of
the Tennessee Valley Authority under
existing law.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I answer my colleague by saying most
emphatically it will not and should not
interfere with the proper operation of
T. V. A., and with the gentleman’s per¬
mission I will proceed to make this state¬
ment: The purpose of section 5 is to co¬
ordinate reservoirs that should properly
be coordinated, to provide for flood con¬
trol and for navigation.
L call the attention of my colleague
to the fact that that language has noth¬
ing on earth to do with the develop¬
ment of power. It has to do only with
and I quote: “flood control and naviga¬
tion.” In the Ohio Valley, along the
Ohio River, the United States in addi¬
tion to financing the Tennessee Valley
Authority for the construction of dams
and reservoirs for flood control for navi¬
gation, but in all fairness and in all
candor primarily for power, has con¬
structed other reservoirs along other
tributaries of the Ohio River for flood
control. If those reservoirs on the
tributaries of the Ohio, including the
Kentucky Dam, the greatest and biggest
of all the T. V. A. dams, is to function
for flood control that dam and those sup¬
plemental dams must be coordinated
with the dams along the Allegheny River,
along the Monongahela River, along the
Kanawah River, along the Muskingum
River, and other tributaries. It is es¬
sential for the proper coordination of
all dams whether along the Tennessee,
whether along the Cumberland, or
whether along the Ohio or any of the
tributaries to be under one central au¬
thority that shall have the final say as
to how those reservoirs and those dams
shall function for flood control. There
Is nothing whatever in this bill that in¬
terferes with the proper pov/er develop¬
ment of the T. V. A.
I supported the T. V. A. and I know the
attacks that were made upon it in the
Congress. The T. V. A., as the gentleman
from Mississippi, if I may presume to say
so, must agree, the T. V. A. has been ap¬
proved by the Supreme Court because of
the development of navigation and flood
control under the commerce clause of the
Constitution. If it be the real purpose
pf the T. V. A. to provide for flood control
■ 'then the T. V. A. ought to be coordinated
with the other reservoir projects and
other flood-control projects; and that is
solely the purpose of this provision.
Mr. RANKIN. I was coauthor of the
bill creating the T. V. A. We went into all
those questions before the bill was ever
introduced. The three main purposes
were to improve navigation, to control
floods, and to produce power. The gen¬
tleman realizes, of course, that the Gil-
bertsville Dam was constructed largely for
flood control. That dam was constructed
by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The
dams on the Tennessee are coordinated,
they are all linked together, they are op¬
erated, may I say, through the power¬
house of the T. V. A.; and I do not want
you to take away from the T. V. A. any
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
of the jurisdiction over the operation of
those dams and reservoirs.
Is it the gentleman’s interpretation
of this bill that its provisions would in¬
terfere with the authority of the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority to operate those
locks and dams and control the reservoirs
on the Tennessee River?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is one of
the purposes for which the authoriza¬
tion exists, to provide for their operation
as authorized by Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi has expired.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman. I
ask unanimous consent that the gentle¬
man’s time may be extended 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. RANKIN. It is a great pity that
when those dams were built on the Ohio
River they did not set up an authority
to harness that great wealth of hydro¬
electric power that is roaring down the
Ohio, all the way down from the Alle¬
gheny Mountains to Cairo and now going
to waste. We took time by the forelock
and did save the power on the Tennessee.
In doing so for the first time we provided
a 9-foot channel from the mouth of .the
Tennessee to Knoxville and at the same
time controlled floods on the Tennessee,
and for the first time provided a system
whereby we could check or hold back
sufficient water to have a tremendous in¬
fluence on floods south of Cairo on the
Mississippi River. What I want to avoid
is having any law passed today that in¬
terferes with the jurisdiction of the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority to control that
river, as the jurisdiction now stands.
What I want to know is whether or not
it is the opinion of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Whittingon] that this
bill will change existing law in that re¬
spect.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. This will not
change existing law in any respect except
to make effective existing law to provide
for flood control. As the gentleman as¬
serts, one of the main arguments, as he
now reminds us, for the T. V. A. was that
it would afford flood control on the Ohio
and Mississippi.
Mr. RANKIN. Here is what the bill is
likely to do; When two distinct authori¬
ties are given the right to interfere it is
likely to cause conflict that would be to
the detriment both of the Tennessee Val¬
ley Authority and the flood sufferers on
the lower Ohio, the lower Mississippi,
and the Tennessee. For that reason I
wish the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Whittington] would leave that pro¬
vision out or else accept an amendment
to clarify the matter and show that it Is
not intended to interfere with the opera¬
tion of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. Will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. I am
wondering if section 5 means that the
Secretary of War can prescribe regula¬
tions for all reservoirs built throughout
the country either wholly or in part with
Federal funds? Does that cover the
reservoirs which have been created and
put under the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. WHI'TTINGTON. If I may be
permitted to answer, most emphatically
no, because it says that it is for flood
control or navigation.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. It says
“all reservoirs constructed wholly or in
part with Federal funds.’’
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Well, I an¬
swered the gentleman’s question. It
would be the duty of the Secretary of
War to prescribe regulations for the use
or storage of water available for flood
control or navigation. It limits the au¬
thority to flood control and navigation
and has nothing to do with reclamation
or power -
Mr. ROWE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANKIN. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Ohio.
Mr. ROWE. In the gentleman’s opin¬
ion these authorities as they are estab¬
lished, and particularly that of the Ten¬
nessee Valley, should remain unim¬
paired in any region where applicable?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes, I think they should
remain unimpaired. The T. V. A. is do¬
ing the greatest job in connection with
the production of power, flood control,
the improvement of navigation, soil con¬
servation, and so forth of any agency of
this Government. I am afraid if the
pending bill is passed in its present form
it is going to impair that efficiently and
greatly injure ,the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority. For that reason, Mr. Chairman,
I offer the following amendment which
I hope the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Whittington] will accept.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rankin: On
page 3, line 21, after the word “regulations”,
strike out the period, insert a comma and the
following; “except as otherwise provided by
existing law.”
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, that is
all we ask, that it will simply protect the
Tennessee Valley Authority from inter¬
ference and will leave the T. V. A. in con¬
trol of the Tennessee River as the pres¬
ent law provides, and I hope my colleague
from Mississippi will accept this amend¬
ment, because it is absolutely necessary
to clarify the situation and to avoid a
conflict that might prove disastrous.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the distin¬
guished chairman of the committee will
accept this amendment, because if it is
not included in the bill it may very seri¬
ously interfere with the war effort and,
of course, none of us want to do that.
I call the attention of the Members to
the fact that some of the dams on the
Tennessee River which are operated by
the Tennessee Valley Authority have re¬
cently been built for the expressed pur¬
pose of producing power for the manu¬
facture of munitions, especially alumi¬
num. The Cherokee, Douglas, and sev¬
eral of the other dams were built pri-
mai’ily for power, and they are charged
100 percent to power operation.
It is quite apparent that if the Corps
of Engineers is going to be able to say,
“You let all of the water out of this
dam,” and the Tennessee Valley Author¬
4285
ity in the meantime has entered into con¬
tracts with the Aluminum Co. of Amer¬
ica, with the Reynolds Metal Works,
and with other war plants up and down
the valley to furnish a certain amount of
electricity, for which these dams were
built, T. V. A. cannot carry out those con¬
tracts. T. V. A. cannot meet its obli¬
gations in order to produce aluminum if
there is going to be any likelihood of the
water being released at those dams so the
generators cannot be operated. I want
to say as a Member from one city in the
Tennessee Valley which did have a seri¬
ous threat of flood and still has a threat,
that the Tennessee Valley Authority, by
operating its dams for a multiple purpose,
navigation, flood control, and the genera¬
tion of electricity, has been able to take
care of the entire flood-control problem
on the Tennessee River with the excep¬
tion of Chattanooga where it is agreed
that in order to be fully protected we are
going to have to build certain protective
works. It has been proven as a scientific
fact that they can successfully operate
their dams for the purpose of navigation,
flood control, and the generation of elec¬
tricity. We are satisfied that they are
doing the best they can for the protec¬
tion of Chattanooga where the only flood
menace now exists.
Mr. Chairman, if the Corps of En¬
gineers is going to be given authority to
operate these dams you might as well
turn the whole Tennessee Valley Author¬
ity over to them. You cannot have the
T. V. A. making contracts to supply elec¬
tricity and at the same time have some¬
body else say hov; much water you can
hold in the dams for that purpose. You
cannot work under that kind of divided
authority.
I hope that the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi will say that it is not intended
to change existing law insofar as the op¬
eration of these dams by the T. V. A. is
concerned because it would be ruinous to
our war effort to have a diffusion of re¬
sponsibility.
Mr. MURDOCK. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Arizona.
Mr. MURDOCK. I agree with the gen¬
tleman in his approval of the amend¬
ment offered by the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi [Mr. R.'inkin] and with the gen¬
tleman’s statement concerning it. The
very fact that dams are built for a mul¬
tiple purpose shows there are other rea¬
sons for such dams besides flood control.
I believe the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi I Mr. Ran¬
kin] will cover the situation and safe¬
guard those other uses.
Mr. KEFAUVER. I thank the gentle¬
man. I maintain that the big problem
at this time is the operation of these
dams that were built for the purpose of
supplying electricity in order to keep the
aluminum production going at full pace.
We have some dams down there in con¬
nection with which there was no flood
control or navigation considered. The
appropriations were to build the dams to
produce power or electricity and those
dams cannot be turned over to the op-
4286 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
eration of the Corps of Engineers unless
we are going to hamper the war effort.
Mr. RANKIN. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KEPx^UVER. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi.
Mr. RANKIN. In the last great flood
even though we did not have the Gil-
bertsville Dam finished, the Tennessee
Valley saved Cairo, Ill. By using those
darns and coordinating them according
to the system they worked out there was
held back the fioodwaters of the Ten¬
nessee River.
Mr. KEFAUVER. The gentleman is
right and in this last flood the Tennessee
Valley Authority prevented substantial
damage to Chattanooga by a decision
there to let a certain cofferdam be
washed out at the Kentucky dam project.
They are doing the very best they can
to control floods by the way they are
operating those dams and at the same
time supply the great amount of power
and electricity that is needed and unless
they can continue to do that the war
effort in the valley is going to suffer
greatly.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 2 ad¬
ditional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee LMr. KefauverI?
There was no objection.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Vermont.
Mr. PLUMLEY. The danger to which
the gentleman refers is not so much in
that to which he refers as it is in the fact
that under this bill discretion is granted
and delegated to the Army engineers,
and if I remember my law correctly, un¬
less you can show fraud in the man to
whom the power to use discretion has
been granted he cannot be challenged
for what he undertakes to do.
Mr. KEFAUVER. I appreciate the
gentleman’s remarks. The point I make
is that you cannot have a divided au¬
thority as to how much water you are
going to let out of the dams to produce
electricity. We have to have that elec¬
tricity for the Aluminum Co. and for the
Reynolds Metal Works which are making
more aluminum for bombers than all the
i-est of the Nation combined. The dams
must continue to be operated under the
T. V. A. regulations.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. Will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I yield to the gen¬
tleman from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. Is it
the gentleman’s opinion that the amend¬
ment offered by the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi IMr. Rankin] will clarify this
particular section so that the law as it
exists at the present time and as ap¬
plicable to the T. V. A., the Columbia
River, the Grand River, and others, will
not be disturbed?
Mr. KEFxWVER. I do not know
about the others. It is my opinion that
this amendment is necessary. This mat¬
ter was settled in the T. V. A. Act and
all we want to do is to keep the program
as it was provided in the T. V. A. Act.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi [Mr. Rankin], will be agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. CANNON of Missouri. Mr. Chair¬
man, this is a very comprehensive bill,
embodying the data, experience, and re¬
search of more than 100 years. The pur¬
pose of the bill is the solution of one of
the most pressing problems confronting
the Nation today. It has been admi¬
rably handled and I hope that everyone
interested in the legislation and the pur¬
pose it seeks to serve has read or will
read carefully the speech which the
chairman of the committee, the gentle¬
man from Mississippi [Mr. Whitting¬
ton], delivered on yesterday.
It is a literary classic. It is a contri¬
bution to the history of our times. It
marks a step forward in flood-control
engineering. Naturally, I am particu¬
larly interested in the application of the
proposed legislation to the Missouri
River Basin.
The Missouri is the longest river on
the North American Continent. It is
approximately 2,500 miles in length and
carries a flow of water unpredictable in
volume and velocity. It drains an area
of half a million square miles. In that
area is included almost every mineral
resource, timber resource, and agricul¬
tural resource which the Nation pro¬
duces or the world could desire.
But Sir Walter Scott’s couplet applies
here with particular aptitude:
O, It is excellent to have a giant’s strength;
But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.
This great river and benefactor of
mankind possesses a potential strength
which untowardly exerted at flood rend¬
ers it a ravaging giant of destruction and
devastation. For the last 3 years it has
been more destructive in my immediate
section of the country than ever before
in the memory of this generation, and
has reached a higher crest and inundat¬
ed wider areas than in any recorded rise
since 1844, a hundred years ago. It fol¬
lows that there is great interest in this
bill in my immediate section, and
throughout the Central West. I would
like to ask the chairman of the com¬
mittee one or two questions. It is my
understanding that the bill in no v.'ay
affects the proposition to establish a
9-foot channel in the Missouri River?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It does not.
No navigation project is embraced in this
bill.
Mr. CANNON of Missouri. And it in
no way affects any proposal for the de¬
velopment of power?
Mr. WHITUNGTON, There are no
facilities and no power projects author¬
ized in this bill. The general law will
obtain. If a reservoir is authorized and
if the Federal Power Commission thinks
that a penstock should be installed, and
the Secretary of War agrees with it,
there will be a penstock installed in the
reservoir. But no power project is au¬
thorized in the bill.
Mr. RANKIN. That is according to
the law passed in 1938?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I say that is
under existing law.
In further answer to the gentleman’s
question, we have repeatedly stated dur¬
ing the debate that no project, reservoir,
or dam, or other improvement is em¬
braced in this bill unless it is primarily
for flood control. If power can be de¬
veloped as an incident, or if reclama¬
tion can be provided, they are cared for
in the bill.
Mr. CANNON of Missouri. And third,
while our primary interest is in flood
control, our immediate concern in the
next few weeks is relief from the dis¬
astrous consequences of the present flood
now devastating the Missouri Valley.
It is my understanding that at the re¬
quest of the chairman, a survey is now
being made by the Board of Engineers
of the flood situation, and as soon as that
report is available a bill will be brought
in to provide for emergency relief in the
repair, replacement, relocation, and rais¬
ing of levees in the stricken areas.
Pending control of fioodwaters, provi¬
sion must be made for their restraint in
this rich agricultural section. May I in¬
quire when the gentleman expects a
report?
Ml-. WHITTINGTON. We hope to get
it in in the next few days. The initial
statement that I made in opening the
debate on this bill was that we requested
the Board to give us the facts on which
to base the emergency bill.
Mr. CANNON of Missouri. And it is
the intention of the gentleman and the
committee to act immediately upon re¬
ceipt of that information?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is. We have
so stated.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last two words.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Mississippi.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Are there any
other gentlemen besides the gentleman
from North Dakota who would like to
be heard? If there are no others, Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
all debate on this- amendment and all
amendments thereto close in 20 minutes,
the last 10 minutes to be reserved to the
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I just
rise to ask this question of both gentle¬
men from Mississippi. My first question
is directed to the chairman of the com¬
mittee and to the gentleman who was the
author of the T. V. A. Section 5 reads:
Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Secre¬
tary of War to prescribe regulations for the
use of storage available for flood control or
navigation at all reservoirs constructed wholly
or in part with Federal funds —
My question is this: If this bill goes
through, then, so far as flood control
and navigation are concerned, the reser¬
voirs of the T. V. A. will be under the
jurisdiction of the Army engineers; is
that not correct?
Mr. RANKIN. That is what I fear.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the gentle-
man addressed that question to me I will
answer unhesitantingly “No; it is not un¬
der the supervision or jurisdiction of the
engineers.” This language of the section
does not change the control nor does it
change the operation of the T. V. A.
authority. I shall undertake to go into
the matter more in detail when I have
the privilege. It merely has to do with
seeing regulations are made for any stor¬
age that is provided in the reservoirs, and
nothing more or less, for flood control
and control.
Mr. RANKIN. That function is al¬
ready vested in the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority, just as it is vested in the Depart¬
ment of the Interior at Grand Coulee and
at Fort Peck in the Army engineers.
Mr. BURDICK. When this language
says that all reservoirs shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of War that
includes all reservoirs, the T. V. A. as well
as everything else.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Where is the
language that it shall be under the juris¬
diction of the Secretary of War? It is
not in section 5.
Mr. BURDICK. Here is the language.
I do not have much education, but I think
I can read English:
Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Sec¬
retary of War to prescribe regulations for
the use of storage available for flood control
or navigation at all reservoirs —
Are you not walking right into a sit¬
uation where you take that control away
from the T. V.. A.?—
constructed wholly or in part with Federal
funds provided on the basis of such pur¬
poses, and the operation of any such project
shall be in accordance with such regulations.
If that does not mean what it says, I
do not understand English.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It means that
the T. V. A. shall operate in accordance
with those regulations for flood control.
Mr. RANKIN. Does it mean that the
Army engineers or that someone else
has jurisdiction to tell the T. V. A. what
to do?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield back the
balance of my time. I just wanted to
ask this question and no one seems to be
able to answer it.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr.' BURDICK. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. I
agree with the distinguished gentleman
from North Dakota as to his definition
of this particular section. The way it is
now worded, it gives the Secretary of
War the authority to prescribe regula¬
tions covering all reservoirs constructed
wholly or in part with Federal funds.
Mr. BURDICK. I am glad the gen¬
tleman can read English also.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Arizona.
Mr. MURDOCK. I would like to ask
whether a reservoir built for an irriga¬
tion project must be regulated solely for
flood control?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the gentle¬
man will yield, that is not involved in this
provision of the bill at all. If they are
erected wholly for reclamation, there is
no flood control and no navigation.
Mr. MURDOCK. The point I wish to
make is that dams for irrigation may
have a flood-control use and a naviga¬
tion implication.
Mr. BURDICK. I started this row,
and you can all get in.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURDICK. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Tennessee.
Mr. KEFAUVER. If the gentleman is
correct in saying that it does not affect
the T. V. A., then does the gentleman
see any harm in saying “otherwise as
provided by law”? It seems to me that
would clarify it.
Mr. BURDICK. Unless you put some
restriction in there and leave the T. V. A.
alone in the work it is doing in flood
control and navigation and power, I will
vote “no,” and I know other Members
will do the same thing.
Mr. KEFAUVER. There is an amend¬
ment pending which will clarify the mat¬
ter entirely.
Mr. BURDICK. I think so.
Mr. CRAVENS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have read section 5
carefully and I think I know the purpose
at which it is aimed. I take this time
merely to inquire of the chairman of the
committee as to the legislative intent
with respect to the language used. It
seems to me that as it is worded it would
cover all flood-control and navigation
projects which have been constructed
in whole or in part with Federal funds.
What I want to ask the chairman of the
committee is this: Is it the intention of
this section, and is it so worded, in the
gentleman’s opinion, as to apply to
reservoirs that have already been con¬
structed with public funds, and put them
under the control of the Army engineers?
As I read the section, it covers all flood
control and navigation projects. It is,
limited to that.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; it does not
cover all projects, but go ahead with the
question you would like to propound.
Mr. CRAVENS. It is limited to proj¬
ects in the construction of which Federal
funds have been used. What I am ask¬
ing the gentleman, and I think this lan¬
guage covers it and I merely want to be
sure about, is this: Is it broad enough
to include the reservoirs and dams here¬
tofore constructed for those purposes,
so as to give the- Army engineers control
over their operation as well as those that
may be constructed in the future under
the authorization of this bill?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would answer
in the affirmative. I suppose that is the
reason for the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Tennessee. The
T. V. A. operates reservoirs that have
heretofore been constructed.
Mr. CRAVENS. This will cover, for
instance, the Pensacola, Grand River
Dam in Oklahoma?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It will, and
that is one of the purposes of the section.
Mr. CRAVENS. I thought this was
broad enough to do it, but as a result of
4287
the disastrous experience we have had
there I wanted to know that the operat¬
ing authority contained in section 5
would be applicable to that project.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAVENS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Mississippi.
Mr. RANKIN. The acceptance of my
amendment would clarify the entire sit¬
uation. If this bill is passed in its pres¬
ent form, it is likely to disturb every one
of these projects that have been
constructed throughout the country.
Mr. CRAVENS. I have no objection to
the gentleman’s amendment. I am
talking about a different proposition en¬
tirely.
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAVENS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. The language in section 5,
as I read it, very clearly states that the
Secretary of War shall prescribe regula¬
tions for the use of “storage available for
flood control or navigation” and “all
reservoirs constructed wholly or in part
with Federal funds,” and that the “proj¬
ect shall be operated in accordance with
such regulations.” If that does not in¬
clude all reservoirs constructed with
Federal funds for the purpose of flood
control and navigation, then the lan¬
guage of the section means something
with which the legislative intent does not
comply.
Mr. CRAVENS. The purpose of my
inquiry was to be assured that the lan¬
guage in section 5 was intended to and
does provide that the Army engineers
may regulate the operation of reservoirs
even though they are already built.
That it does not apply to the future proj¬
ects only.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It would not if
the amendment of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] were adopted.
Mr. GORE. Then does the gentleman
accept the amendment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Not at all.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAVENS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from North Dakota.
Mr. LEMKE. I note that the gen¬
tleman has asked the chairman what
this language means. Member after
Member has asked what the intention
is. May I ask the gentleman whether
we are going to be governed by the
language of the bill or whether, whqn
the bill is passed, we shall have to look
into the Congressional Record to find
out what the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi meant or intended to do?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the gentle¬
man will yield, I want it understood
that I answered the question of the
gentleman from Arkansas by saying this
section embraced the Grand River
Authority, and the gentleman knows
why it should be embraced. I answered
him, further by saying that if the
amendment of my colleague the gentle¬
man from Mississippi [Mr. R.\kkik] were
adopted, it would embrace the Grand
River Authority, and the Grand River
No. 82 - 5
4288
May 9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
Authority should be regulated as pro¬
vided in this section.
Mr. CRAVENS. What I am particu¬
larly interested in and the reason I
asked the question is that we have had
some very disastrous experiences with
the operation of certain flood-control
projects. What we thought were flood-
control projects turned out to be some¬
thing else as a result of the activities of
agencies of the Government other than
the Army engineers. • All I want to find
out is this: I think the language is
broad enough — and I wanted the chair¬
man’s corroboration of my construction
of it— that the Army engineers by this
language will have the right to regulate
projects already constructed, and will
not be limited by tliis language to those
that may be constructed in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog¬
nizes the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Whittington].
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE. Will the gentleman ex¬
plain the effect of the words “Federal
funds provided on the basis of such
purposes”?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will under¬
take to do so.
Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the
committee I have been asked to accept
the amendment whose purpose is to ex¬
cept the T. V. A. from the operations of
section 5. I have responded frankly that
I am unable to accede to that request.
The amendment and the substance of
the amendment have been carefully con¬
sidered by the Committee on Flood Con¬
trol, and the committee decided not to
accept the amendment. A number of
my friends from Tennessee and one from
Alabama have asked me if I would be
agreeable to accepting a similar amend¬
ment. I have answered them frankly
that in my judgment their fears or ap¬
prehensions were without substantial
foundation.
The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
CravensI who has just taken his seat re¬
ferred to the project that gave to our
committee the inspiration for this sec¬
tion. A project was authorized known
as the Grand River Authority in Okla¬
homa. It involved the construction and
operation of the Pensacola Dam. Re¬
ports were made on that project and in
those reports it was understood that a
certain amount of space in the Grand
River Dam should be reserved for flood
control. In the flood of 1943, last year,
they had the most disastrous flood in the
Arkansas Valley in the vicinity of the
Grand River Authority. It developed in
the hearings conducted by the Commit¬
tee on Flood Control that that authority
in its ambition and desire to develop
power had not reserved the storage re¬
quired by the report of the Army engi¬
neers for flood control.
It appears to the committee that the
ceuntry should know the facts. That au¬
thorization was made because In that
reservoir there was to be reserved space
for flood control. It was not reserved.
It was not under the supervision of the
Secretary of War. He could not make
the regulation. All he could do was ask
for the space.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing on
earth in this provision that interferes
with the war effort. It will not affect a
single dam that has been referred to by
my friend from Tennessee where pro¬
vision is made for flood control. The
dams that are constructed primarily for
power will not be involved. Why? Some
of the dams are constructed for power
and for flood control. This amendment
simply provides that the T. V. A., the
Grand River Authority, or any other au¬
thority shall so operate those dams and
those authorities that the regulations of
the Secretary of War asking for the use
of the space paid for by the people of the
United States in those dams for flood con¬
trol shall in the event of flood be available
for flood control. Can there be any ob¬
jection to that?
I am aware that unfortunately govern¬
mental agencies make claims from time to
time that cannot be substantiated. I re¬
member that in 1937 they had the great¬
est flood in the history of the Ohio Val¬
ley at Cincinnati and Louisville. From
one end of the river to the other, they
had the greatest flood, the highest flood,
in the history of that valley. The spokes¬
man for the Tennessee Valley Authority
rushed in to the public print and said,
substantially, “The Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority has saved the Tennessee Valley.
While the Ohio Valley is being overflowed,
the Tennessee Valley is suffering from no
flood.”
The fact of the matter was, and I so
stated repeatedly, that in the Tennessee
Valley that year along the Tennessee
River and its tributaries there were no
maximum floods. If there were floods
along the tributaries of any major river
in the United States at the same time, no
reservoirs, no flood-control works, no
levees would protect the people. There
, would be another Noah’s flood.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed for the additional 5 minutes re¬
served to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
to be more to the point, in 1937 when
overnight, almost, the Ohio River rose
some 50 feet at Cincinnati, Paducah, the
gage at Johnsonville in the Tennessee
Valley, the gage at Chattanooga, the
gage at Knoxville, showed conclusively
that there was no major flood in the Ten¬
nessee Valley. The great Ohio flood
came from the Miami and other valleys
than the Tennessee Valley. There were
rains and there v/as high water in the
Tennessee Valley, but there was no major
or maximum flood comparable to the
floods in the Miami and other tributaries
of the Ohio River,
In my judgment, with all due respect,
and while I have supported the Tennessee
Valley Authority, the claim that the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority saved Cairo, the
claim that the Tennessee Valley Author¬
ity materially reduced the floods of the
Ohio River in 1937, is utterly without
merit. The thing that saved Cairo was
the flood walls built there to an eleva¬
tion of 60 feet and the New Madrid
Ploodway under the Flood Control Act
of 1928, I have no personal interest
in this proposition. I submitted the
amendment to the committee. The
Chief of Engineers will not supervise or
operate anybody’s T. V. A. dam. Hie
Chief of Engineers will not supervise or
operate anybody’s authority. The lan¬
guage is that it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of War to prescribe regulations
for the use of storage available for flood
control or navigation. There is not a
word about power. The authorities will
continue to operate the dams, but there
will be one person charged with the re¬
sponsibility of operating the dams for
flood control. There will be no divided
authority.
If there is nothing in the reservoir that
was built anywhere, at Pickwick or else¬
where, for flood control, that section
would not be applicable. At all reser¬
voirs constructed wholly or in part from
Federal funds provided on the basis of
such purposes, reserving to power every
foot of water that w'as intended for
power, the operation of such projects
shall be in accordance with the regula¬
tions. It does not say “operation by the
Secretary of War.” It does not say “op¬
eration by the Chief of Engineers.” It
says “operation,” by whom? By the au¬
thority that is charged with law, and by
law with the operation. This section
provides that there shall be coordination
in the operation of all reservoirs on all
of the tributaries when there is a flood
in the Ohio Valley. It also requires the
coordination under one person with the
final say on all of the tributaries of the
Arkansas when there is a flood in that
valley. This section applies only if there
is space reserved in those dams made for
the storage of flood waters. And the
Secretary of War, ’to protect the people
and the property in those valleys, shall
make regulations, and those regulations
should be enforced for the utilization of
those waters for flood control so that
there may not be a repetition of the
deaths and destruction in the Grand
River' Authority of 1943.
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. The gentleman has made
a very good point, it seems to me, that
this section 5 should apply to certain
projects.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
what is the question of the gentleman,
please?
Mr. GORE. It is my intention to offer
an amendment only to except the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. In my judg¬
ment, may I say to the Members of the
House, as a friend and supporter of the
Tennessee Valley Authority, giving them
due credit for the magnificent war pro¬
duction, there is not a thing in this sec¬
tion 5 which will interfere in anywise
with the proper operation or with the
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 4289
authority of those charged with the re¬
sponsibility for power development. It
will merely guarantee that the Authority
do what the Grand River Authority did
not do in Oklahoma in 1937, and that
they will reserve what is to be required
by the regulations of the Army engi¬
neers and that the T. V. A. reservoirs
will coordinate with the reservoirs along
the Muskingum, and .the reservoirs along
the Miami and other tributaries of the
Ohio and while there are no authorities,
there are reservoirs, along the tributaries
of the Ohio where power is being de¬
veloped, especially in projects begun
under the National Industrial Recovery
Act
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. I would like to ask this
question : Is it not true that the author¬
ity of the Secretary of War to prescribe
regulations is limited to regulations for
the storage for flood control only?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Absolutely, and
for navigation. He is just asking that
the storage which the people of the
United States provided in those dams
shall be reserved for flood control if it is
needed to protect the lives and property
of the people.
Under leave to extend, as I stated, none
of the dams authorized in the pending
bill provide primarily for the generation
and distribution of power. The domi¬
nant interest in all of the dams is flood
control. Such has been the case in pre¬
vious flood-control bills. There are some
dams authorized where power is inci¬
dental. In such cases where the report
so states, provision is made for power,
but there is no provision generally for
power in the reservoirs authorized. I
recall that in some of the flood-con¬
trol dams provision is made for power to
provide for utilization in reclamation.
This is true with respect to dams in the
Kings and Kern Rivers, but I repeat that
there is no provision in the bill gener¬
ally for the establishment of power fa¬
cilities and for the distribution of power.
In all cases it will be necessary for Con¬
gress in the future to make distribution
and to provide facilities for the sale and
distribution of any pow'er that may be
generated at any of the dams. There is
provision for power in a few of the large
dams along the tributaries of the Ohio,
but the authorizations in the pending
bill will not provide for the completion
of these reservoirs, in my judgment,
where power may be generated, and it
will be necessary for Congress to make
provision in the future for power facili¬
ties and distributions. I repeat that
where power is incidental, flood control
being the dominant interest, there are
in some reservoirs provisions for gener¬
ating power, but there is no provision for
the distribution and sale of power. In
responding to questions, I made the
statement that there was no provision in
any of the ii'eservoirs for the generation
of power. I made that statement having
in mind that there were no reservoirs au¬
thorized in the bill primarily for power.
In a few of the reservoirs, as in the case
in reclamation reservoirs, there is a pro¬
vision for the generation of power, but
in no reservoir is there any provision for
the distribution and sale of power, and
I repeat that before such sale and distri¬
bution can be made, it will be necessary
to obtain further congressional au¬
thority.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WHIT¬
TINGTON received permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired. All time has ex¬
pired.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi [Mr. Rankin].
The question was taken: and on a divi¬
sion (demanded by Mr. Rankin) there
were — yeas 18, nays 52.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment which is at the Clerk’s desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gore: On page
3, line 21, after the word “regulation”, strike
out the period and insert a comma and the
words “except as otherwise provided in the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I have no desire to be technical, but it
strikes me in all fairness, that is exactly
the amendment, not exactly, but sub¬
stantially word for word, the amend¬
ment we just voted on.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I withdraw the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Tennessee is recognized for 5 min¬
utes.
Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman; I reserve
the point of order.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, let us
thresh out the point of order now if
there is going to be a point of order
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Kentucky reserved the point of or¬
der. The gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. Gore] has been recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, a par¬
liamentary inquiry, if the gentleman
from Tennessee will yield.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle¬
man from Tennessee yield?
Mr. GORE. I yield to the gentleman
from Missouri, to state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COCHRAN. Did not the reserva¬
tion of the point of order come too late?
The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Whittington] withdrew the point of or¬
der, and the Chair recognized the gen¬
tleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gore].
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes
to state to the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Cochran] that another Member,
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
May] reserved the point of order.
Mr. COCHRAN. Yes; but not until af¬
ter the Chair had recognized the gentle¬
man from Tennessee,
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi, the able and
distinguished chairman of the commit¬
tee, it seems to me, made a good case that
some projects not constructed under the
supervision of the Ai-my and Navy engi¬
neers should be brought under their
supervision by the operation of section 5,
but in no way did it appear to me that
he made a case, or that a case had been
made or can be made, that the Tennessee
Valley Authority should be brought under
the supervision of the Army engineers.
The gentleman from Mississippi says
“wherever the water is to be used for
navigation or flood control.’’ Mr. Chair¬
man, you cannot use the same water for
flood control and navigation and then
take it in a bucket and bring it back
above the dam and use it for power.
These dams and this whole system is an
integrated multiple-purpose system.
The reservoirs are used for flood con¬
trol; yes. To provide navigation; yes.
And also for generation of power. It is
not comparable to a dam that is con¬
structed strictly and solely for one of the
three purposes. In those dams this
water and these reservoirs are used for
all three purposes and to give supervision
over flood control and navigation to one
authority and then give to another au¬
thority control over generation of power
is a futile -proposition, because one
agency will have control over the water
for two purposes, while another agency
would have control over the same water
for a third purpose. It just does not work
out that way. Water over the dam for
whatever purpose is water over the dam.
Tliis House, a great many times, has
seen the trouble we encounter whenever
we give divided authority. Here is a
great river valley that is being utilized to
the satisfaction of Congress. Here is an
agency that is providing flood control
and navigation in an admirable way, and
at the same time using the same water
for the generation of power. The T. V.
A. is an agency created by Congress.
Now, without due consideration of its
effect upon this great agency, we are
about to adopt a bill which does very
vitally affect it.
I hope that, even though the gentle¬
man from Mississippi [Mr. Whitting¬
ton] is not empowered by his committee
to accept this amendment, the commit¬
tee will not resist to the last degree the
adoption of the amendment, which would
exclude from the act that which has not
been given due and proper consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Kentucky withdraw the point of
order?
Mr. MAY. No, Mr. Chairman; I in¬
sist on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear
the gentleman from Kentucky. What is
the gentleman’s point of order?
Mr. MAY. The point of order is that
the same subject has been dealt with in
a previous amendment which was voted
upon by the Committee just a few mo¬
ments ago.
Section 5 of the act, to which the
amendment is offered, provides:
That it shall be the duty of the Secretary
of War to prescribe regulations for the use of
storage available for flood control or navi¬
gation at all reservoirs constructed -wholly ot
in part -with Federal funds provided on the
4290
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 9
basis of such purposes, and the operation of
any such projects shall be in accordance with
such regulations.
The amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from Tennessee [Mr. Gore] would
preclude the Secretary of War from pro¬
viding regulations as to those reservoirs
or areas devoted to flood control on the
Tennessee River.
In addition to the fact that it has al¬
ready been passed upon, it is legislation
which would amend by indirection an act
of Congress and the general law on the
subject.
Mr.. GORE. Mr. Chairman, 1 would
like to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear
the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. Upon the point that the
amendment is identical with the amend¬
ment offered by the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi [Mr. Rankin], the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi provided that section 5 should ap¬
ply “except as otherwise provided by
law.” The amendment which I have
offered provides “except as provided in
the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.” I
would point out to the Chair one instance
where the amendment offered by the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin]
would be applicable and where the
amendment which I have offered would
not be applicable. For instance, the Co¬
lumbia River. The amendment offered
by the gentleman from Mississippi would
except that, whereas the amendment
which I have offered would only except
the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. One
is general in its application while the
other is specific.
As to the further point of order sug¬
gested by the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. May] that this is legislation which
would repeal existing law, I would sug¬
gest that that is the very purpose of the
bill and of section 5, to which the amend¬
ment is offered. Therefore, this does not
constitute a sustainable point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bul winkle).
The Chair is ready to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from Mis.sissippi [Mr. Rankin] pro¬
vided “except as otherwise provided by
existing law.” The amendment offered
by the gentleman from Mississippi is
general in its character and applies to all
projects. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gore]
referred specifically to that which was
provided in the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority .Act.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, many Members prob¬
ably voted against my amendment be¬
cause it was too broad. I hope they will
support this amendment, and I hope my
colleague, the chairman of the commit¬
tee, will accept it.
V/henever you turn over the operation
of the dams on the Tennessee River to
any other agency, to that extent you
cripple the greatest project of its kind
ever developed on this earth. The gen¬
tleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whit¬
tington] spoke about the floods on the
Ohio River in 1937, and contend that
holding back the water in the Tennessee
did not affect them. If you go back, you
will find that the water came within a
very few inches of going over the levee at
Cairo, Ill., and was discussed in the press
and over the radio at the time, and I
thought was generally understood. If it
had not been for the coordination of
those dams and the holding back of that
water on the Tennessee River, the Ohio
River would have gone over the dam and
flooded the city of Cairo, Ill.
The gentleman spoke about the great
floods on the Ohio. Of course, we regret
those floods and we regret floods any¬
where, but if they had taken time by
the forelock on the Ohio River, as they
did on the Tennessee, and had built the
same kind of dams, we would not only
have been able to promote navigation, we
would have been able to produce ten or
twelve billion kilowatt-hours of elec¬
tricity every year that is now going to
waste on the Ohio River, and we also
would have been able to more adequately
control floods on that stream for local
purposes, and hold back the floodwater
from the Mississippi River.
Now, suppose you get someone in con¬
trol of this system who is at loggerheads
with the Tennessee Valley Authority,
and they decide to open up the dams on
the Tennessee in advance and let all that
water out; then suppose the rains fail
in the Tennessee Valley area. That is
not at all beyond the realm of possibility.
Such procedure would vastly injure the
entire Tennessee Valley area.
The dams on the Tennessee are all
controlled now from a central station.
They keep in touch with the water on
every tributary. They know when the
floods are coming and by the pressing of
a button or speaking over one micro¬
phone they can instruct them how to
regulate the flow of the stream and how
to control it to the best advantage. If
you take that authority away from T.
V. A. and place it under somebody else,
you will do the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority irreparable injury, in my opinion,
and you will not have improved the flood
control on the Mississippi River and the
Ohio River, or any other river, and will
have injured it as far as the Tennessee
is concerned.
I hope the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that all de-,
bate on this amendment, and all amend-
ments thereto, close in 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment in all
fairness, if I may be permitted to say
that, is a reflection on the T. V. A. It
provides that this shall not apply to the
T. V. A. In other words, it authorizes
the T. V. A. to commit a fraud on those
dams where there is space reserved for
flood control. It says to them, “If that
space is necessary it shall be applicable
everywhere else in the United States ex¬
cept on the T. V. A.” I do not have that
opinion of the T. V. A. I do not want to
authorize them to violate a mandate of
Congress.
I do not want to authorize them to per¬
petrate a fraud by saying to them that
the space in the reservoir provided in the
construction for flood control should not
be utilized.
In all fairness and in all deference this
amendment is worse than the other. I
am the friend of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, I have supported it; I would
not want to do anything to interfere with
its operation. All on earth this section
does is to direct that when there is a
flood and the Secretary of War, speaking
for the Chief of Army Engineers, states
that they need space up there and they
make a regulation, the T. V. A. in its op¬
eration will provide for it only when
there is a flood; and that is the only
time they need the space.
Finally, the authors of the amend¬
ment are right. A divided authority over
a responsibility often means no author¬
ity. A divided authority meant the mis¬
use last year of flood space in the reser¬
voir at Pensacola on the Arkansas River.
A divided authority now between the
Secretary of War, who could only ask for
the space reserved for flood control, and
the T. V. A., might mean the loss of life
and the destruction of property.
Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield.
Mr. JENNINGS. Let me ask the dis¬
tinguished gentleman from Tennessee if
it is not a fact that the Tennessee Val¬
ley Authority has so operated these dams
as to make all necessary contributions
to flood control in the past,?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will answer
the gentleman by saying that I know of
no guide for the future except the ex¬
perience of the past. I am not going
to discriminate and say that one author¬
ity is a saint and another is a sinner.
Mr. JENNINGS. But I am asking the
gentleman a practical question.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The only flood
we have had since the Tennessee Valley
Authority was established was in 1937
and there were no great floods on the
gentleman’s I’iver or in the Tennessee
Valley, that year.
Mr. JENNINGS. I have asked the
gentleman -
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have an¬
swered the gentleman’s question by say¬
ing there has been no great, or maximum
flood on the Tennessee River since the
T. V. A. was authorized.
Mr. JENNINGS. Is it not a fact that
the Tennessee Valley Authority has these
dams for three purposes: The improve¬
ment of navigation, the control of flood-
waters, and the production of power
and that as a result of power opera¬
tions it is now under contract -
Mr. WHITTINGTON. And nothing
on earth -
Mr. JENNINGS. Let me finish my
question.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the
gentleman’s question? i
Mr. JENNINGS. With 1,200 munici¬
palities and over 200 war plants depend¬
ing on the Tennessee production of
power -
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentle¬
man’s question is fair; I know what he
is referring to. There is nothing on
earth -
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
Mr. JENNINGS. Should we under
these circumstances run the risk of a
power shortage or failure by the injec¬
tion of some other agency into the con¬
trol of waters of this area?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Dealing with
the development of power, in the sec¬
tion; but there was a provision as I
recall in the 1941 act for a levee at
Chattanooga on the Tennessee River in
the vicinity of Union Station. That
levee was made some 15 or 18 feet for
a mile or so on the theory that the res¬
ervoirs would operate above it for flood
control. That flood control was pro¬
vided by the act establishing the T. V. A.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has expired.
The question is on the amendment of¬
fered by the gentleman from Tennessee.
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. Gore) there
were — ayes 26, noes 65.
Mr. GORE. Mr. Chairman, I ask for
tellers.
Tellers were refused.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Whittington; Page 4, line 6. strike out the
words “stored water” and insert in lieu there¬
of the word "storage.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON- Mr. Chairman,
this is a perfecting amendment. Its pur¬
pose is to do just what the committee has
asserted and just what the committee
has reported in the bill. The section
under consideration provides that where
there is water for reclamation of arid
lands in any reservoir and provision
therefor that the distribution of the
water shall be by the Secretary of the
Interior, the Director of Reclamation
will handle the distribution; there was
a criticism that this language which is
substantially the reclamation law, un¬
dertook to change existing law and re¬
quired the beneficiaries of reclamation to
pay for water. This language in here is
the language of the Reclamation Act and
they pay only for storage.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer another committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Vvhittington: Page 4, line 2, after the word
“regulation”, insert the following: “Under
existing reclamation law.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
some of the friends and spokesmen for
reclamation were critical of the lan¬
guage in the bill. It was asserted that
where provision was made in a reservoir
where there was water for reclamation
that the Commissioner of Reclamation
should have the power to prescribe reg¬
ulations ad libitum without regard to
existing law. This is merely a perfecting
amendment. This amendment provides
that these regulations shall be under ex¬
isting reclamation law. It is a perfecting
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
the amendment is agreed to.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever in the opinion
of the Secretary of War and the Chief of
Kngineers any dam and reservoir project
operated under the direction of the Secretary
of War can be consistently used for reclama¬
tion of arid lands, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe
regulations for the use of the storage avail¬
able for such puz’pose, and the operation of
any such project shall be in accordance with
such regulations. Such rates, as the Secre¬
tary of the Interior may deem’ reasonable,
shall be charged for the use of said stored
water; the moneys received to be deposited
into the Treasury to the credit of miscella¬
neous receipts.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a committee amendment, which
I send to the Clerk’s desk.
The Clei’k read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Whittington: Page 4, line 8, after the word
“receipts”, strike out the period. Insert a
colon and add; “Provided, That this section
shall not apply to any dam or reservoir here¬
tofore constructed which supplements any
existing locally operated irrigation district.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
this is a committee amendment and the
committee authorized submission of the
amendment after this set of facts was
brought to its attention: At one or two
reservoirs at least provision is made for
the water for lands that are not pres¬
ently under the Director of Reclamatioi*
in districts where the local interests
have constructed their own canals and
their own distribution system. The pur¬
pose of this amendment is to limit the
provisions of this act so that they shall
not apply to districts with canals and
distribution facilities that have already
been paid for and constructed by local
interests.
It is a perfecting amendment in the
interest of reclamation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
agreeing to the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 7. That the following works of im¬
provement for the benefit of navigation and
the control of destructive flood waters and
other purposes are hereby adopted and au¬
thorized in the interest of the national
security and with a view toward providing
an adequate reservoir of useful and worthy
public works for the post-war construction
program, to be prosecuted under the direc¬
tion of the Secretary of War and supervision
of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with
the plans in the respective reports herein¬
after designated and subject to the condi¬
tions set forth therein: Provided, that the
necessary plans, specifications, and prelimi¬
nary work may be prosecuted during the
war, with funds from appropriations hereto¬
fore or hereafter made for flood control, so
as to be ready for rapid inauguration of
a post-war program of construction: Pro¬
vided further. That when the existing criti¬
cal situation with respect to materials, equip¬
ment, and manpower no longer exists, and
in any event not later than immediately
following the cessation of hostilities in the
present war, the projects herein authorized
shall be Initiated as expeditiously as may
be consistent with budgetary requirements
4291
and shall be prosecuted vigorously during
the period of post-war reconversion; And
•provided further, That penstocks and other
similar facilities adapted to possible future
use in the development of hydroelectric
power shall be Installed in any dam herein
authorized when approved by the Secretary
of 'W’ar on the recommendation of the Chief
of Engineers and the Federal Power Com¬
mission.
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated the sum of $30,000,000 for the prosecu¬
tion of the comprehensive plan approved in
the act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the
act approved August 18, 1941, for the Con¬
necticut River Basin : Provided, That neither
this authorization nor previous authoriza¬
tions shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a high dam at the Williams-
ville site.
THAMES RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion
of the plan approved in the act of August
18, 1941, for the Thames River Basin at an
estimated cost of $7,200,000.
HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN
Tlie project for the Thomaston Reservoir
on the Naugatuck River, for flood control in
the Housatonlc River Basin, Conn., is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 338, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $5,151,000.
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
The project authorized by the act of June
22, 1936, to provide for local protection works
on the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg, Pa.,
is hereby modified substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document No. 702, Sev¬
enty-seventh Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $2,227,000.
The project for flood protection at Tyrone,
Pa,, on the Little Juniata River, Pa., is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 702, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $1,392,000.
The plan for flood control in southern New
York and eastern Pennsylvania authorized
by the act of June 22, 1936, as modified by the
act of August 18, 1941, is hereby further mod¬
ified to include the South Plymouth and
Genegantslet Reservoirs on tributaries of the
Chenango River substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document No. 702, Sev¬
enty-seventh Congress, second session, at an
estimated additional cost of $4,755,000.
The plan for the Raystown Reservoir on the
Raystown Branch of the Juniata River, Pa.,
for flood control and other purposes, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 702, Seventy-seventh Con¬
gress, second session, is approved, and there
is hereby authorized to be appropriated the
sum of $2,000,000 for the initiation and par¬
tial accomplishment thereof.
MOBILE RIVER B.ASIN — ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER
BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion of
the Allatoona Reservoir on the Etowah River,
Ga., approved in the act of August 18, 1941,
at an estimated cost of $14,400,000.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
The project for flood control and Improve¬
ment of the lower Mississippi River adopted
by the act of May 15, 1928, as amended by
subsequent acts of Congress, is hereby modi-
4292
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 9
fled in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
No. 509, Seventy-eighth Congress, second ses¬
sion, and, as modified, is hereby adopted and
there is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated, In addition to the sums previously au¬
thorized, $200,000,000 for the accomplishment
of the purposes set forth in said document.
The project for flood control on the Boeuf
and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon, Ark.
and La., is hereby authorized substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate
Document No. 151, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $6,-
013,000.
The project for flood control on the Big
Sunflower, Little Sunflower, Hushpuckena,
and Quiver Rivers and their tributaries, and
on Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal, Bogue
Phalia, Ditchlow Bayou, Deer Creek, and
Steele Bayou, Miss., is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 516, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of
$3,762,000.
The project for flood protection in the
backwater area of the Yazoo River authorized
in the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941,
is hereby amended to authorize the Chief of
Engineers, in his discretion, to include im¬
provements for the protection of the Satartla
area at an estimated additional cost of $1,-
061,000 or, in his discretion, to include im¬
provements for the protection of the Satartla
area plus its extension at an estimated addi¬
tional cost of $1,952,000.
BED-OUACHITA RIVEK BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion of
the plan approved in the act of August 18,
1941, for the Little Missouri River in Arkan¬
sas, at an estimated cost of $3,800,000.
ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated the sum of $35,000,000 for the prosecu¬
tion of the comprehensive plan approved in
the act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the
act approved August 18, 1941, for the Arkan¬
sas River Basin.
The projects for local flood protection on
the Arkansas River are hereby modified and
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 447, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated additional cost of $10,299,400.
The project on tributaries of the Fountaine
Que Bouille River for flood protection at Colo¬
rado Springs, Colo., is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 186, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost of $500,000.
The project on Purgatolre River for local
flood protection at Trinidad, Colo., is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 387, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $909,000.
WHITE RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated the sum of $45,000,000 for the prosecu¬
tion of the comprehensive plan approved
in the act of June 28, 1938, as modified by
the act approved August 18, 1941, for the
White River Basin.
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there Is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated the sum of $10,000,000 for the prosecu¬
tion of the comprehensive plan approved
in the act of June 28, 1938, for the Upper
Mississippi River Basin.
The project authorized by the act of June
22. 1936, for local flood protection on the
Mississippi River at the Ste. Genevieve
Levee District No. 1, Missouri, is hereby
modified substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 727, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $141,000.
The project on the Mississippi River for
local flood protection at Sabula, Iowa, is
hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 328,
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $25,000.
The project on the Galena River, for local
flood protection at Galena, Ill., is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 336, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $300,000.
The project for flood control on the Illinois
River is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document if^o.
692, Seventy-seventh Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $111,500.
The project on Elk Creek and Turkey
River for local flood protection at Elkport,
Iowa, Is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineeers in House Document No.
700, Seventy-seventh Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $13,000.
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN
The projects for flood control for Red Lake
River, Minn., Including Clearwater River,
Minn., are hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
345, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $902,940.
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN
The general comprehensive plan for flood
control and other purposes in the Missouri
River Basin approved by the act of June 28,
1938, as modified by subsequent acts, as here¬
by expanded to include the plan of improve¬
ment for flood control, irrigation, power de¬
velopment, navigation, and other purposes,
substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 475, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session; and as expanded is
approved; and, in addition to previous au¬
thorizations, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $200,000,000 for the
partial accomplishment of the comprehensive
plan as modified and expanded: Provided,
That nothing in this act shall be construed
as creating below Sioux City any demand
upon the water resources of the Missouri
River Basin above Sioux City in excess of that
now authorized by existing law: And pro¬
vided further, That portions of the storage
authorized for the main stem of the river shall
be placed on tributaries if the Secretary of
War and the Chief of Engineers find such
action advisable for silt control and in order
to make more water readily available for agri¬
cultural and industrial use without impair¬
ment of flood control below Sioux City and
without Increasing the authorized limit of
cost.
The project adopted by the act of June 22,
1936, to provide flood protection for the
Kansas Citys, Kans. and Mo., is hereby modi¬
fied and extended to provide for improvement
substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 342, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated additional
cost for the modified project of $8,445,000.
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion of
the plan approved in the act of August 18,
1941, for Cherry Creek and tributaries, Colo¬
rado, at an estimated cost of $7,500,000.
The project on Knife River for local flood
control at Beulah, N. Dak., is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the rec¬
ommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 252, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $26,100.
The project on Knife River for local flood
control at Hazen, N. Dak., is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the rec¬
ommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 252, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $6,600.
The project on Milk River adopted by the
act of June 22, 1936, to provide local flood
protection at Harlem, Mont,, is hereby modi¬
fied substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in Senate Document No. 103, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $21,100.
The project on Milk River for local flood
protection at Havre, Mont., is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in Senate Document No. 103, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $313,100.
The project on Boyer River for local flood
control on East Fork of Boyer River at Deni¬
son, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Ekigineers in House Document
No. 254, Seventy-eighth Congress, first ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $17,830.
The project on Nishnabotna River for local
flood control at Hamburg, Iowa, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 253, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $236,000.
The project on Bear Creek for local flood
protection at Morrison, Colo., is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 356, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $220,000.
OHIO RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $70,000,000 for the prosecution
of the comprehensive plan approved in the
act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the act
approved August 18, 1941, for the Ohio River
Basin, Including the following projects in
tributary basins, namely:
The local flood protection works in the Lake
Chautauqua and Chadakoin River area, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 685, Seventy-seventh Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $135,500;
The local flood protection works at Dillon-
vale and Adena on Short Creek, Ohio, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 889, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $158,200;
Tire local flood protection works at Tay¬
lorsville on Salt River, Ky., substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in Senate Document No.
105, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost of $129,350;
Tlie local flood-protection works at Latrobe
on Loyalhanna Creek. Pa., substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
444, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $112,500;
The Burr Oak Reservoir on the Hocking
River, Ohio, substantially in accordance with
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 762, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $400,000;
Tlie Rowlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat
River, substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in the report submitted to Congress by the
Secretary of War on November 26, 1942, at an
estimated cost of $29,230,000; and
The improvement in the Youghiogheny
River Basin, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in a report submitted to Congress by
the Secretary of War on March 29, 1943, at an
estimated cost of $37,970,000.
GREAT LAKES BASIN
Tire project for the Panther Mountain Res¬
ervoir on Moose River, N. Y., is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 405, Seventy-seventh
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
cf $600,000.
The project for flood control on Chitte-
nango Creels and tributaries. New York, is
hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 625,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $111,000.
The projects for flood control on Owasco
Inlet and Outlet, Montville and Dry Creeks,
State Ditch, and Crane Brook, N. Y., are
hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 815, Sev¬
enty-seventh Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $64,200.
COLORADO RIVET. BASIN, TEX.
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion
of the plan approved in the act of August 18,
1941, for the North Concho River, Tex., at
an estimated cost of $4,800,000.
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion
of the plan approved in the act of August
18, 1941, for Pecan Bayou, Te.x., at an esti¬
mated cost of $1,560,000.
BRAZOS RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized the completion of
Whitney Reservoir in accordance with the
plan approved in the act of August 18, 1941,
for the Brazos River Basin, at an estimated
cost of $15,000,000.
RIO GRANDE B.ASIN
The project on Willow Creek for local flood
protection at Creede, Colo., is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the rec¬
ommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Senate Document No. 104, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $68,500.
SAN DIEGO RIVER BASIN
The project on the San Diego River for
local flood protection at San Diego, Calif., is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document No. 635, Sev¬
enty-seventh Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $370,000.
VENTURA RIVER BASIN
The projects on the Ventura River and
tributaries for local flood protection at Ven¬
tura and Ojai, Calif., are hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 323, Seventy-seventh
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $1,600,000.
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $10,000,000 for the prosecution of
the projects approved in the act of June 22,
1936, as modified by the act of June 28, 1938,
for the Santa Ana River Basin and for the
protection of Orange County, Calif., includ¬
ing the projects on Lytle and Cajon Creeks
for local flood protection at San Bernardino
and Colton, Calif., in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the report of
the Chief of Engineers dated February 11,
1944.
LOS ANGELES-SAN GABRIEL BASIN AND BALLONA
CREEK
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $25,000,000 for the prosecution of
the comprehensive plan approved in the act
of August 18, 1941, for Los Angeles and San
Gabriel Rivers and Ballona Creek, Calif,
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN
Sacramento River
The projects for the control of floods and
other purposes on the Sacramento River,
Calif., adopted by the acts approved March 1,
1917, May 15, 1928, August 26, 1937, and
August 18, 1941, are hereby modified substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors dated February 7, 1944, with such
modifications thereof as in the discretion of
the Secretary of V/ar and the Chief of Engi¬
neers may be advisable, at an estimated cost
of $46,056,000; and, in addition to previous
authorizations, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for
the prosecution of the modified projects:
Provided, That this modification of the proj¬
ect shall not be construed to authorize the
construction of a high dam at the Table
Mountain site.
San Joaquin River
The project for the Isabella Reservoir on
the Kern River for flood control and other
puiTDOses in the San Joaquin Valley, Calif.,
is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in his report dated January 26,
1944, contained in House Document No. — ,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $6,800,000.
The plan for the Terminus and Success
Reservoirs on the Kaweah and Tule Rivers
for flood control and other purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley, Calif., in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in Flood Control Committee Docu¬
ment No. 1, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, is approved, and there is hereby au¬
thorized $4,600,000 for initiation and partial
accomplishment of the plan.
The project for flood control and other
purposes for the Kings River and Tulare
Lake Basin, Calif., is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the plans
contained in House Document No. 630, Sev¬
enty-sixth Congress, third session, with such
modifications thereof as in the discretion of
the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engi¬
neers may be advisable at an estimated cost
of $19,700,000: Provided, That the conditions
of local cooperation specified in said docu¬
ment shall not apply; Provided further. That
the Secretary of War shall make arrange¬
ments for payment to the United States by
the State or other responsible agency, either
in lump sum or annual installments, for con¬
servation storage when used: Provided fur¬
ther, That the division of costs between flood
control and irrigation and other water uses
shall be determined by the Secretary of War
on the basis of continuing studies by the
Bureau of Reclamation, the War Department,
and the local organizations.
The plan of improvement for local flood
protection on various streams in the Merced
County stream group in the San Joaquin
Valley is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
473, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $1,300,000.
4293
The plan of improvement for flood control
and other purposes on the Lower San Joaquin
River and tributaries. Including Tuolumne
and Stanislaus Rivers, in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in Flood Control Committee Document
No. 2, Seventy-eighth Congress, second ses¬
sion, is approved, and there is hereby author¬
ized $8,000,000 for initiation and paitial
accomplishment of the plan.
COQUILLE RIVER BASIN
The project for flood protection on the
Coquille River, Oreg., is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 620, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $143,000.
NEHALEM RIVER BASIN
The project for flood protection on the
Nehalem River, Oreg., is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 621, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $23,000.
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum' of $20,000,000 for the prosecution of
the comprehensive plan approved in the act
of June 28, 1938, for the Willamette River
Basin, with such modifications thereof as in
the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may
be advisable.
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
The projects on the Snake River for local
flood protection at Heise, Roberts, and Weiser,
Idaho, are hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document
No. 452, Seventy-seventh Congress, first ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $743,000.
Tlie projects on the Palouse River and trib¬
utaries for local flood protection at Pullman
and Colfax, Wash., are hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 888, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $478,000.
The project on Alkali Canyon for local flood
protection at Arlington, Oreg., is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 631, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $118,000.
WILLAPA RIVER BASIN
The project on the Willapa River for local
flood protection at Raymond, Wash., is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 701, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $127,000.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
1 oiler a committee amendment, which I
send to the Clerk’s desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Whittington: Page 5, strike out all of line
2 after the word “herein” and all of lines
3 and 4 and all of line 5, including the word
"reconversion” and insert in lieu thereof the
following : "shall be initiated as expeditiously
and prosecuted as vigorously as may be con¬
sistent with budgetary requirements.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
with the indulgence of the Committee
permit me to say that the language
stricken out on page 5 of the bill is as
follows :
Shall be initiated as expeditiously as may
be consistent with budgetary requirements
4294
May 9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
and shall be prosecuted vigorously during
the period of post-war reconversion.
The Director of the Budget suggested
in lieu of that language the language of
the amendment that I have sent to the
Clerk’s desk. I think it means the same
thing and the committee is agreeable to
the language suggested by the Director
of the Budget rather than the language
of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a committee amendment in exact¬
ly the same language on page 27 of the
bill where this language I have directed
attention to occurs again.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Whittington: Page 27, strike out all of line
9 after the word “herein” and all of lines 10,
11, and 12 and insert in lieu thereof the
following: “shall be initiated as expedi¬
tiously and prosecuted as vigorously as may
be consistent with budgetary requirements.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chair¬
man, the identical language is stricken
and the same language substituted as
in the previous amendment, applicable
to page 5.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I have one further committee amend¬
ment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr.
Whittington: On page 20, line 11, strike out
the period after the word “site” and add the
following words: “But shall authorize only
the low level project to approximately the
elevation of 400 feet above mean sea level,
said low level dam to be built on a founda¬
tion sufficient for such dam and not on a
foundation for future construction of a high¬
er dam.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
this proviso has reference to a project
along the Sacramento River. The pres¬
ent proviso in the bill is in the following
language:
Provided, That this modification of the
project shall not be construed to authorize
the construction of a high dam at the Table
Mountain site.
The language that I have submitted in
the amendment proposed is the language
that the Member from that district in¬
volved, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Engle] has suggested, which the
Corps of Engineers has approved. It
means exactly the same as the language
in the bill and the committee has no
objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. STEARNS of New Hampshire.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment
which I send to the clerk’s desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns of New
Hampshire. Page 6, at the end of line 10,
Insert :
“In connection with the exercise of Juris¬
diction over the rivers of the Nation through
the construction of works of improvement,
for navigation or flood control, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the Congress to
recognize the interests and rights of the
States in determining the development of
the watersheds within their borders and like¬
wise their interests and rights in water utili¬
zation and control; to preserve and protect
to the fullest possible extent established and
potential uses, for all purposes, of the wa¬
ters of the Nation’s rivers: and to limit the
authorization and construction of navigation
works to those in which a substantial benefit
to navigation will be realized therefrom and
which can be operated consistently with the
appropriate and economic use of the waters
of such rivers by other users.
“In conformity with this policy, any
works of improvement for navigation or
flood control herein or hereafter authorized
for construction by the Chief of Engineers
under the supervision of the Secretary of
War affecting the use of waters in the rivers
of the Nation shall be governed by the fol¬
lowing provisions and conditions;
“(a) Works herein authorized shall not be
undertaken until an investigation and a re¬
port thereon have been made and approved
by the Congress, as provided in (b), in any
case where the Governor of any State in
which the works or any part thereof are lo¬
cated or in which arise any of the waters
which are required therefor, files a written
objection thereto with the Secretary of War
within 3 months after the date of this act.
“(b) Such works hereafter authorized for
construction shall not be undertaken until
after the making of an investigation, and the
submission to and approval by the Congress
of a report as provided in this paragraph.
The investigation and report shall be made
to the end, among other things, of providing
for the coordination of plans for the con¬
struction and operation of the proposed works
with other plans for the use of waters that
would be affected thereby. In conformity
with this requirement, the Secretary of War
is hereby directed to investigate such pro¬
posed works for navigation or flood control
in cooperation with the State or States in
which the works or any part thereof are to
be located and in which arise any of the wa¬
ters that would be required therefor, and, in
the case of works that might require the use
of waters arising west of the ninety-seventh
meridian, in cooperation also, with the Secre¬
tary of the Interior. Reports based on such
cooperative investigations, to be submitted
to the Congress, shall set out therein, among
other things, the relationship between the
construction and operation of the proposed
works and the plans of the various States
respecting the affected waters, the views and
recommendations of the affected States with
respect to the proposed works; and in the
case of investigations made in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Interior, the rela¬
tionship between the construction and the
operation of the proposed works and existing
and potential beneficial consumptive uses of
waters west of the ninety-seventh meridian,
and between plans developed or being devel¬
oped by the Secretary of the Interior for the
reclamation of the arid lands and purposes
incidental thereto, and the views and recom¬
mendations of the Secretary of the Interior
with particular reference to these matters.
Such reports shall be effective only when
approved by the Congress.”
Mr. STEARNS of New Hampshire.
Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of
the amendment as read. This amend¬
ment admittedly is somewhat long. My
remarks fin it are going to be appreciably
more brief. Under the circumstances the
amendment, in order to cover the ground,
has to_,be long, but in reality there is
nothing complex or involved about it.
Its purpose, clearly stated in the first
paragraph, is to protect the States
against developments within their bor¬
ders, which would be detrimental to
them. The amendment does not pro¬
vide — and I want to emphasize this —
that any State can permanently block a
necessary project. Neither does it cre¬
ate unnecessary delay in the case of fu¬
ture authorizations as provided in sec¬
tion (b) . The procedure would be essen¬
tially no different from that which is now
followed. The time involved would be
no greater. Even in the case of sec¬
tion (a), works included in the present
authorization, there is no question of
construction beginning until after the
close of the war, and there is no reason
for any objection to the delay that might
be involved.
The amendment simply makes manda¬
tory that proposed projects shall be ex¬
amined by the Secretary of 'War in coop¬
eration with the Stats or States affected,
and in the case of waters west of the
ninety-seventh meridian in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Interior. It
thus makes certain that in all eases the
position of the State or States with refer¬
ence to construction and operation of a
project shall come officially before Con¬
gress in the Army engineers’ reports.
■Whereas the facts are sometimes brought
before the Army engineers, they recognize
the States’ right to be heard in these mat¬
ters, and so long as we continue to be a
Federal Government, composed of 43
States, it preserves to the individual State
the rights to which its self-respect and
dignity entitle it.
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS of New Hampshire. I
yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DONDERO. Is this not the same
language that was stricken out of the
river and harbor bill, or similar to an
amendment that was rejected in the
House when the river and harbor bill
was under consideration?
Mr. STEARNS of New Hampshire. I
do not have the text of that amendment
before me.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
I have very high regard for the gen¬
tleman who offered this amendment, but
I do not believe the proposed language
should be written into the flood control
law of the land. I do not think that it
could be charged that I am one who
disregards local and State rights in ref¬
erence to water. As a matter of fact,
when the rivers and harbors bill was be¬
fore the House I spoke in favor of the
amendment and voted for all of the
amendments to give priority to the
rights of the local irrigators and users of
water.
However, in the amendment that is
before us now we have a different prop¬
osition. As I understand this amend¬
ment, it would mean that every project
we have authorized today by this act
would have to be resurveyed, another
report brought back to the Congress,
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
4295
and then Congress would have to au-
tlrorize it again; more surveys, more re¬
ports, more waiting, more expense.
There are rivers in the country that
have had very serious flood-control prob¬
lems, where the damages run into the
millions of dollars and cost hundreds
of lives. For year after year they have
had surveys and resurveys and meet¬
ings and pep meetings and surveys and
more surveys, and the people are tired
of it. There is not a project here which
does not have the approval of the dis¬
trict engineer, the division engineer, the
Board of Review of Rivers and Harbors
and the Chief of Engineers. To enact a
provision in this bill that says we pro¬
pose to authorize some work and that
this authorization does not count until
you have another survey, another report
back to Congress and another act of
Congress, is rather confusing. It is un¬
fair to the people who will be benefited
by this bill.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Massachusetts.
Mr. McCORMACK. In the course of
those surveys by the district engineers
and the United States Army engineers
Corps, public hearings are held, not only
locally, but here in Washington, and an
opportunity is afforded to anyone who
desires to present his views; is that not
correct?
Mr. CURTIS. That is correct.
I am very much in accord with the ob¬
jective of the amendment to grant every
possible consideration to local interests.
I am very much in accord with the idea
that State authorities should be con¬
sulted in these matters, but I do not be¬
lieve that we can win the respect of the
country by making our procedure more
cumbersome and say that we are going
to have two acts of Congress to authorize
what we say we are authorizing today.
(Mr. CURTIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re¬
marks in the Record.)
Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
There are a number of projects in this
authorization bill which are located in
the State of Oregon, and I want to take
this opportunity to congratulate the dis¬
tinguished chairman of the Committee
on Flood Control and his colleagues on
their wisdom and foresight in including
these projects in the bill. Several of
those Oregon projects are in my own
congressional district, and I confess to
a certain degree of personal satisfaction
in the generous treatment they have re¬
ceived from the committee because all
of those projects were initiated by my¬
self, as the Representative in Congress
from that district, and all of them had
their origin in the resolution which I
introduced providing for the initial
surveys.
The Willamette River Basin flood-con¬
trol project when completed will be one
of the most comprehensive flood control
projects in the entire world. It will not
only stop the disastrous floods in the
valley but it will also irrigate the entire
area through which that great river
flows.
This is the third authorization made
by the Congress for this great project,
which has been declared by the Army
engineers to be one of the most perfect
multi-purpose projects of its kind in the
United States, and one of the most
beneficial.
Since I introduced the resolution au¬
thorizing the first survey several years
ago the project has expanded in scope
beyond the original expectations of
either the engineers or the people in
the Willamette Valley who will benefit
most directly by it. Already there has
been authorized for the project $22,300,-
000, most of which has been appropriated
and spent in construction. This bill au¬
thorizes $20,000,000 more, and I am glad
to note that the committee recommends
the expenditure of that additional
amount immediately following the close
of the war. This project has been given
a very high post-war priority and it
distinctly merits it.
Both for the information of my col¬
leagues and of the people of the Wil¬
lamette Valley, who are so vitally inter¬
ested in this project, I should like to read
here a portion of the committee’s report,
showing the scope of the project and the
progress which has been made to date.
The Willamette River is formed by the
Coast and Middle Forks, which join a
few miles above Eugene, Oreg, The river
then flows north 189 miles to enter the
Columbia River 99 miles above its mouth.
The Willamette Basin lies between the
Cascade Range on the east and the coast
range on the west. The mountainous
areas, which comprise a large part of the
basin, are characteristically rugged and
generally covered by forests. The valley
floor pi’oper is a broad alluvial plain
through which the main stream and the
lower sections of its tributaries flow in
winding courses. The basin has a drain¬
age area of 11,200 square miles. The
population is approximately 650,000, en¬
gaged in farming and forestry and the
processing of those products. The farm
lands in the valley are very fertile and
are intensely cultivated.
Floods in the basin may be expected
from November through April and major
floods occur in the period from late No¬
vember to early February. Flood dam¬
ages to farm lands and communities are
very heavy. The most recent flood in this
area occurred in the period between De¬
cember 31, 1942, and January 4, 1943,
when the stage at Albany exceeded bank-
full stage by 13.6 feet and an area of
342,300 acres was inundated, causing
damage estimated at $5,708,000.
Congress authorized bank-protection
works at several localities in the basin in
the Flood Control Act of 1936 and in
the act of June 28, 1938, approved the
general , comprehensive plan for flood
control, navigation, and other purposes
in the Willamette River Basin as set forth
in House Document No. 544, Seventy-
fifth Congress, third session, and author¬
ized $11,300,000 for the initiation and
partial accomplishment of that plan.
The Flood Control Act of 1941 authorized
an additional appropriation of $11,000,-
000 for the prosecution of this compre¬
hensive plan. With authorization of
funds thus far provided by Congress the
War Department has completed most of
the bank-protection works along the
Willamette, Clackamas, Molalla, and
Santiam Rivers, and the Fern Ridge and
Cottage Grove Reservoirs. The prepara¬
tion of detailed plans for four other reser¬
voirs in the approved plan is well under
way.
The committee recognizes the import¬
ance of carrying forward the flood-pro¬
tection works in the Willamette River
Basin to an early completion and it be¬
lieves that the sum of $20,000,000 should
be authorized at this time in order that
this important v/ork may continue im¬
mediately following the cessation of hos¬
tilities.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con¬
sent to extend my remarks in the Rec¬
ord and to include therein data con¬
tained in the committee’s report on this
project, a part of which I have just read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOTT. I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. MURDOCK. Did the gentleman
say that there were certain projects the
surveys of which had not been complet¬
ed, and which were not included because
the surveys were not completed?
Mr. MOTT. No; I did not say that.
I said there were a number of author¬
ized Oregon projects in the bill, and I
was calling particular attention to one
of the major ones in western Oregon, in
the first district of that State, which I
have the honor to represent. The sur¬
vey for this particular project was com¬
pleted more than 5 years ago and the
construction has been under way for 4
years. Surveys for the other Oregon
project were completed more recently,
but they have all been completed, and
approved.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I was very much impressed by the ques¬
tion asked by the gentleman from Mich¬
igan of the gentleman from New Hamp¬
shire [Mr. Stearns], the author of the
pending amendment, and I want to be
kindly disposed when he asked him if
his amendment did not embrace matters
that were defeated on the floor of the
House during the consideration of the
river and harbor bill a few weeks ago.
The gentleman very frankly responded
that he was not aware. If the question
had been asked him just what his amend¬
ment embraced and who was responsible
for it, I think he might have answered in
a similar way and said that he did not
know, because whether he knows it or
not, this amendment is contradictory,
and would destroy flood control.
There would not be any flood control
or reclamation or other projects under
No. 82
■6
4296
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 9
the proposed amendment. Somebody
has imposed on the gentleman, I say
with all due deference, and there have
been cooked up into one amendment
offered by him a lot of the unfounded
fears that have been conjured up by
some of the, people in the far West with
respect to reclamation.
For instance, there is a provision here
that one law shall apply east of the
ninety-seventh meridian and another
west of the ninety-seventh meridian.
Whether the gentleman knows it or not,
under the Constitution of the United
States the same law must apply every¬
where where the facts are identical, be¬
cause the Constitution is applicable both
east and west of the ninety-seventh
meridian.
Again, the gentleman says that all of
the projects that are approved in this
bill shall be referred to the Bureau of
Reclamation and to the other services,
when in truth and in fact, whether the
gentleman knows it or not, under the
regulations of the President of the United
States, the Director of the Budget now
directs that before any recommendations
can be submitted by the Chief of Engi¬
neers or by the Secretary of War they
must be referred to the Commissioner of
Reclamation, the Federal Power Com¬
mission, and other agencies of the Gov¬
ernment that may be interested. So
there would be a case of going up the
hill again after we have already made
the trip down. All of those precautions
are provided for in the existing Budget
requirements.
Moreover, with respect to the doctrine
of the appropriation of waters west of the
ninety-seventh meridian, permit me to
say that there are flood-control projects
in this bill for the protection of the city
of Los Angeles, with 1,500,000 people.
There are projects in this bill west of
the ninety-seventh meridian for the pro¬
tection of the people of the Sacramento
Valley, where the Congress of the United
States has been making flood-control
appropriations since 1917.
There are items in this bill for the pro¬
tection of the magnificent valleys of the
Kings and Kern Rivers, where the people
for more than 75 years have constructed
their own local protective works, where
millions of dollars have been invested in
local protection works. Yet under the
gentleman’s amendment, all of these
matters would be thrown into the ash-
can and hereafter they shall be under
the supervision of the Commissioner of
Reclamation, if those responsible and
fostering the gentleman’s amendment
have their way.
Again, this bill provides for magnifi¬
cent flood-control projects in the State
of Oregon in the Willamette Valley, one
of the most magnificent valleys and one
of the best flood-control projects in the
United States. All projects are now re¬
ferred, and properly so, for comment to
the Director of Reclamation and the Fed¬
eral Power Commission, under the direc¬
tion of the President of the United States,
before they are transmitted to the Con¬
gress. The Director of the Budget re¬
quires that all comments and all criti¬
cism of every project be embraced in the
reports.
Mr. Chairman, whether the gentleman
knows it or not, one of the best projects
in this bill is for the protection of New
England. I give it to you as my deliber¬
ate judgment, and I know something of
every river in the United States — mark
my words, I measure my statement when
I say there is more nearly complete pro¬
tection for the Connecticut Valley in New
England in this bill than for any other
part of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend¬
ment be rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Hampshire [Mr. Stearns].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows;
Amendment offered by Mr. Plumley; On
page 5, line 18, after the article “a”, strike
out the word “high.”
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, since
I arrived on the floor I have received a
telegram concerning which I wish to
make a comment or two, and it will take
me more than 5 minutes. I ask unani¬
mous consent to proceed for an addi¬
tional 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, I used
up a lot of time yesterday undertaking
to define my position with respect to
this bill. I shall not take much time
now.
I stated the reasons why I proposed to
offer this amendment.
Personally and officially I am opposed
to any dam at the proposed Williamsville
site such as is contemplated. There is
no exigency, no emergency, no hurry,
which necessitates action at this time
in the Connecticut River Valley area.
It may be that the so-called program
now calls for a dam at the Williamsville
site. This is not conclusive of the need
therefor.
Competent engineers advise me that
there are other ways to accomplish the
necessary flood control without disrupt¬
ing the program or destroying so much
property, or interfering with so many
lives as does the proposed establishment
of the Williamsville Dam. Even a low
dam, whatever that is or may be, for its
height and its definition is left to the
discretion of the Army engineers.
You see, Mr. Chairman, this low dam
destroys 4 cemeteries, one of 50 graves,
one of 300 graves, another of 300 graves,
and the fourth of 200 graves, a total of
850 graves. Some of them are of men
who were at Westminster, Vt., where the
first blood of the Revolution was shed.
It is to be 460 feet above mean sea level,
and 180 feet high from the foundation.
It will flood 2,700 acres destroying two
villages, namely. West Dummerston and
Harmonswille, where incidentally, there
is everything but harmony with respect
to the prospect of its desti’uction.
Some 144 buildings will be inundated
including schools and churches.
So I am opposed to the plan as pro¬
posed. You would be, did it involve the
people of your district.
It is true the compacts are out of the
window, but even the Federal Govern¬
ment should show some respect for States
which evidenced their desire to contract
to establish flood control and did com¬
pact so to do.
Since it is a matter of record that there
are other plans which do not involve de¬
struction and devastation but afford am¬
ple protection for flood control, I insist
that neither the authorization in this
bill, nor previous authorizations should
be construed to authorize the construc¬
tion of any dam at the Williamsville site,
and therefore, to accomplish this pur¬
pose the bill should be amended as I
suggest: On page 5, line 18, by striking
out the word “high.” The proviso will
then read:
Provided, That neither this authorization,
nor previous authorizations, shall be con¬
strued to authorize the construction of a
dam at the Williamsville site.
This should be done in order that more
complete and full and ample considera¬
tion and further hearings may be had,
and that the rights and interests of the
several States involved and affected may
be taken into consideration more com¬
pletely and fully protected.
The excuse and justification offered
for Federal interference is based on the
argument that States will not enter into
compacts. The States involved in this
controversy did enter into a compact;
therefore, that argument falls flat. They
agreed;, they legislated; they made a
compact “out of the window.” They are
nevertheless entitled to be heard before
sentence is pronounced and they are
dictatorially executed on a Federal altar.
I desire to read a telegram I have just
received:
Springfield, Vt., May 8, 1944.
Hon. Charles A. Plumley,
House of Representatives Office Building,
Washington, D. C.:
Am informed it is reported I stated before
Flood Control Committee in House of Rep¬
resentatives that Vermont would be satisfied
with a dam on West River if power poten¬
tialities were eliminated. Such report en¬
tirely erroneous, if alleged to be a quotation,
it is incorrect. We urge such flood-control
construction as will safeguard persons and
proper];y along lower Connecticut River and
at same time preserve and not destroy West
River Valley. I request you carry this mes¬
sage to the House. What is a high dam?
Alban J. Parker,
State of Vermont Attorney General.
The attorney general opposed the con¬
struction of any dam at the Williamsville
site. He favored, instead, a number of
small dams in that basin, which would
give equal or a greater amount of flood-
control storage for the benefit of the
lower Connecticut River Valley area, and
would give the West River Valley area
flood protection also, while not destroy¬
ing its essential character.
The attorney general spoke officially
for the State.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to par¬
ticipate in any civil war in New England
and I regret the necessity of rising in
opposition to the amendment of my col¬
league from Vermont. As a matter of
fact, the striking out of the word “high”
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
in the proviso inserted in this bill, as
suggested by the gentleman from Ver¬
mont [Mr. Plumley], would leave the.
proviso reading, “neither this authoriza¬
tion nor previous authorizations shall be
construed to authorize the construction
of a dam at the Williamsville site.”
I want to call attention to the fact that
the proposed dam at the Williamsville
site is one of 20 approved by the Army
engineers and approved by Congress.
Three of these reservoirs have been built
and money is authoi'ized in this bill for
the other 17 reservoii's. There is no
more reason why Congress should say
there shall not be a flood-control reser¬
voir at Williamsville than we should say
there shall not be a flood-control reser¬
voir at any other town in Vermont. Con¬
gress cannot pick the site for these
flood-control reservoirs. We have got to
leave that to the Army engineers. I
think when the committee added this
proviso eliminating the high dam at Wil¬
liamsville, they assured the people of
Vermont that there would be no moije
land flooded than was absolutely neces¬
sary to carry out their plan of flood con¬
trol. and for flood control alone. I con¬
curred in the statements made before the
Committee on Flood Control by the dis¬
tinguished attorney general from Ver¬
mont and I am so quoted in the record.
If this bill provided funds as had been
contemplated for erecting a $29,000,000
dam and reservoir at Williamsville, I
would be fighting side by side with the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Plumley]
to strike that item from the bill. But
so long as the Williamsville Dam and
Reservoir is nothing more than a flood-
control dam and reservoir like the other
19 reservoirs, I do not believe the amend¬
ment should be adopted. We continue
to leave the decisions as to the location
of these flood-control reservoirs with the
Army engineers.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MILLER
of Connecticut received permission to re¬
vise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CLASON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it perhaps will be in¬
teresting to the members of the commit¬
tee to know that there have been 3
major floods on the Connecticut River in
the last 17 years; in 1927, 1936, and 1938.
Those 3 floods took 28 lives and caused
property loss to the extent of $144,000,-
000. These floods come too frequently.
Each year we suffer damages amounting
on the average, according to the Aripy
engineers, to more than $3,800,000 in the
Connecticut Valley. Even in those years
when We have only spring freshets, our
losses run into hundreds of thousands of
dollars, due to damage done in smaller
agricultural and industrial towns. In
order to offset these great losses which
have occurred, as I say, in the past 17
years, the Army engineers have come
forward with a program of local protec¬
tive works at 7 cities and towns and for
the construction of 20 reservoirs. These
are small reservoirs. Of these 20 reser¬
voirs, the lai'gest is the reservoir to which
this amendment is directed. The total
number of square miles drained by the
tributaries whose waters would be im¬
pounded in the 20 reservoirs is about
2,500. This reservoir alone represents
400 square miles or about one-sixth of
the entire program. It is all important
to the people of Hartford, Springfield,
and Holyoke, and of all the cities and
towns in Massachusetts and Connecti¬
cut, as well as in New Hampshire and in
Vermont, which lie on the Connecticut
River, that this dam remain in the pro¬
gram. The Army engineers have told us
time and time again it is the most im¬
portant dam that we have. If we go
through with this program, for which the
Government has already appropriated or
authorized the expenditure of $40,000,000,
to leave out this dam would be like the
boy in Holland with the dike. You would
have a complete, beautiful dike, but you
would have a hole in it, and no one would
be plugging the hole. The result would
be we would suffer huge losses along this
river, regardless of how much we had
expended on the other 19 dams.
For that reason I feel that this com¬
mittee, knowing these facts and of these
losses of over $144,000,000 in the 17 years
in 3 separate floods, plus the loss of 28
lives, will not want to stand in the way
of the recommendations of the Army
engineers. Only yesterday the gentle¬
man from Vermont [Mr. Plumley]
stated he wanted it distinctly understood
that he is all for flood control, and his
constituents are incontrovertably for
flood control. This is a chance for him
to prove it, because this is the most im¬
portant flood-control reservoir that
there would be in the entire Connecti¬
cut Valley. Yesterday a former Gov¬
ernor of Massachusetts, our colleague,
who knows about what has been going on
in our New England States, said that
the compacts to which the gentleman
from Vermont referred in his speech,
cannot possibly be carried out between
the several States. In other words, about
$5,000,000,000 may have to be used in
order to have complete flood control in
this country. In those basins which lie
in more than one State, as the Governor
stated yesterday, you cannot expect the
States to take on any such burden. The
compacts in New England which were
referred to and which were voted down
and rejected by this body back in 1938,
provided for only eight small dams, and
they included power. Power has been
taken out of this dam in order to meet
the objections of the people of Vermont.
All we ask for is a low dam for flood-
control purposes only. The reservoir will
be in a valley where 76 percent of the
land is wooded.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CLASON
received permission to revise and ex¬
tend his remarks.)
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last three words.
Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to enter into
this very pleasant and interesting Re¬
publican dispute, from New England, but
coming from New England myself, I
enter as one who represents a district
in that section of the country. It is also
pleasing to me, as the author, in 1938,
of the 100-percent Federal contribution
for flood-control dams» to note my Re¬
publican brethren from New England,
4297
every one of whom were here at that
time, opposed it, that they have seen the
light and now support the position that I
took then. I see the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Plumley] in a nice, pleas¬
ant way chastising me by indicating that
he was the other way. Well, I cannot
challenge him because I have too much
affection for him to take issue with him
even if my recollection was to the con¬
trary.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCORMACK. Does the gen¬
tleman want to get into this New Eng^
land pleasantry? I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. Would not the gentle¬
man still favor the compact method of
the States rather than the method pro¬
vided in this bill?
Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman
introduced the law under which these
authorizations are being made. The
gentleman from Massachusetts comes
from an area that has no flood problems.
But the gentleman from the Boston sec¬
tion of New England, who is now speak¬
ing, always thought that the problems of
the people of other sections of the coun¬
try were the problems of the people of
my section, and I am glad to see my New
England brethren on the Republican side
getting away from their economic pro¬
vincialism in considering the problems
of the people of other sections of the
country.'
So my purpose in rising was not so
much to enter into a Republican dispute
of a pleasant nature but, perhaps with a
little pride, to refresh the recollection of
my Republican brethren from New Eng¬
land when they condemned me as a vio¬
lator of States’ rights in 1938, when the
only thing I stood for was that where a
river flowed between two or more
States — I do not care where they are lo¬
cated, north, east, south, or west — and
the people of the area in which the river
flowed were affected by floods, loss of
life, and loss of property, that was a chal¬
lenge to the Federal Government and
not to the State governments. That was
the broad viewpoint I always took, and I
am somewhat proud of the fact that the
existing law was introduced by myself.
I am particularly pleased to note my Re¬
publican friends from New England, who
were here in 1938 — mark you, I say
1938 — honestly opposing then after the
experience of the past several years has
sho\vn that my humble leadership at that
time was for the best interests of the
country and for the best interests of New
England following me now.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCORMACK. I yield.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Perhaps
it is possible that some of the Republican
friends from New England know when
they are licked, but we do not want to
be drowned after that.
Mr. McCORMACK. Correct. Open
confessiqn is always good for the soul,
according to the old saying. In any
event, as I recollect, my friend is ex¬
cluded from my remarks, as he was not
here’ in 1938.
As far as the amendment is concerned,
with this little pleasant exchange re-
4298
May 9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
freshing history for the benefit of New
England only, I hope the amendment, of
my friend from Vermont [Mr. Plumley]
will be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Massachusetts has ex¬
pired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment close in 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chair¬
man, I rise in opposition to the amend¬
ment.
Mr. Chairman, as a citizen of the
State of Jefferson Davis, standing for
State rights from my youth up, I rather
hesitate to enter into this controversy
with Vermont, because it might serve
to remind of the days of ’63, when my
relatives and some citizens from Ver¬
mont had some differences that were
adjusted at Vicksburg against Missis¬
sippi’s better judgment. But I should
like to say there is not a Member of
the House for whom I entertain a higher
personal regard than my good friend
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Plumley]. For many years, as a voice
crying in the wilderness, there were
those of us who defended resei’voirs to
detain the floodwaters in the hills where
they originate, as a contribution to the
solution of flood control. Among the
first reservoirs for flood control that I
ever saw, among the first constructed
in the United States, were some reser¬
voirs in the magnificent State of Ver¬
mont. I shall never forget a trip I made
across the beautiful Green Mountains
one afternoon, in driving out from
Montpelier. Interested in mountains
and streams as I am, I visited among the
first flood-control reservoirs constructed
east of the Mississippi River for flood
control in the State of Vermont. They
protected the lands below. As a mem¬
ber of the Committee on Flood Control,
I received an inspiration, and we pro¬
vided for reservoirs in every flood-con¬
trol act, beginning with the act of 1936.
The amendment offered by the gen¬
tleman from Vermont [Mr. Plumley]
if adopted, would be — pardon me for say¬
ing it — worse than ridiculous. Under
• the adopted project for the Connecticut
River Basin for the protection of Hol¬
yoke, Springfield, Hartford, and the val¬
ley up the river, there are some 14 to
19 reservoirs authorized, as I recall, 5
being in the State of New Hampshire —
the river dividing those 2 beautiful, mag¬
nificent, and fine States — 9 of them being
in the State of Vermont. The closest of
these reservoirs to Massachusetts, as I
recall, is the reservoir that the gentle¬
man would strike out of this bill. So
they would leave in the act the reser¬
voirs that really occupy other narrow
valleys of Vermont farther up the State.
It is really most unsound to contemplate
the elimination of 1 reservoir near
the boundary of Massachusetts, and
there are several in Massachusetts, 1
or 2 of which have already been con¬
structed, as recall, just to strike out 1
reservoir that is farthest away from most
of the people in Vermont. In my judg¬
ment, the $30,000,000 authorized in this
bill for the further protection of the val¬
ley would be jeopardized, because the
millions of money spent for the con¬
struction of levees and flood walls at
Springfield, Hartford, Holyoke, and oth¬
er cities was all expended and the
heights of flood walls and levees were
fixed in consideration of the benefits of
the reservoirs that were to be construct¬
ed above.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that there is
no more generous flood-control project
in the United States, none any more
nearly completely provided for, than that
along the Connecticut River, in the
flood-control acts, beginning with the
act of 1936, and perfected in the pend¬
ing bill.
With all deference, I trust that the
amendment of my friend the gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Plumley] in the in¬
terest of flood control in New England,
will be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont [Mr. Plumley] .
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I
send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin Arthur
Hall: On page 6, line 16, after the amount
strike out the period, Insert a comma, and
the following: “And is further modified to In¬
clude flood-control work and structure.? in
the greater Endicott-Vestal-Johnson City
area on the Susquehanna River at cost not
exceeding $500,000.”
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr.
Chairman, a few years ago, the distin¬
guished chairman of the committee and
several of his colleagues made a trip into
up-State New York and examined flood
damage done by the Chenango and Sus¬
quehanna Rivers. They found and they
recommended that a great deal of trouble
could be saved the people up there by the
building of the Whitney Point Dam proj¬
ect.
Unfortunately, as I said in my remarks
on the floor yesterday, this only accom¬
plished half what it should have accom¬
plished. It saved the city of Bingham¬
ton, which is at the . confluence of the
Chenango and Susquehanna Rivers. The
steps taken in flood-control work at that
junction and in the Whitney Point Dam
project did save the city of Binghamton
itself from serious future flood ravages.
Unfortunately, it did little or nothing for
the municipalities of Johnson City, En-
dicott, and the village of Vestal, a few
miles below, on the Susquehanna River.
In fact, the construction of flood walls
on the southern bank of the Susque¬
hanna, in the city of Binghamton, may
even have aggravated the situation fur¬
ther down, because as time passed, more
and more sediment collected along the
banks of the Susquehanna down near
greater Endicott, and throughout the
Vestal area. *
Every year thousands of people are
flooded out of the lowlands on each side
of the Susquehanna as it courses down
through Johnson City, Willow Point,
Broad Acres, Vestal, and through the
Greater Endicott area. For this reason
I submit to the Hotise that this job has
been only partly done. Nearly as many
people are affected in these areas — and
the distinguished Chairman is famfliar
with that section — as there are in the
city of Binghamton. I hope the House
will give serious consideration to further
and additional flood-control work being
done in the very near future by the Army
engineers on those few miles beyond the
confluence of the Chenango and the
Susquehanna Rivers. Tlrose people liv¬
ing in areas below the junction are just
as much entitled to have their properties
protected against floods as the good peo¬
ple in my own home city of Binghamton
are. I am very happy about and satis¬
fied with the work which the committee
and the Army engineers have done in my
home section. Nevertheless, I believe
that the Army engineers owe it to the
people of the municipalities farther down
the river to see to it either that the river
is dredged at Vestal and vicinity or that
constructive and substantial flood walls
are erected at these points so that floods
will not in the future ravage and damage
the properties of the people down there.
Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I yield.
Mr. STEFAN. Did the gentleman ap¬
pear before the committee on this proj¬
ect?
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I have
appeared before the committee and I will
say in all deference to the good chair¬
man that he gave me a very sympathetic
hearing. I have also talked with Gen¬
eral Reber who at that time was in
charge of the Army Engineer Corps.
They have all been sympathetic with my
proposal.
If this amendment is adopted it will
provide that those sections and those
municipalities be added to the sections
that have already been mentioned in this
bill and that no steps can be taken until
the provisions of this legislation have ap¬
plied to them, they to be subject also to
such other legislation as should apply.
Let me point out that no objections have
been voiced by the Army engineers to this
project so far as I know. Therefore, I
hope the amendment will be adopted and
I ask the favorable consideration of the
Committee.
Mr. V/HITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I shall not take
the 5 minutes.
The chairman. The gentleman
may proceed.
Mr. WHITUNGTON. Mr. Chmrman,
in opposing this amendment permit me
to say that we are most sympathetic with
the situation at Binghamton. The proj¬
ect was adopted for the vicinity of Bing¬
hamton. If the project is to be ex¬
tended to other areas will not the gen¬
tleman permit me to suggest that he
will have to ask the committee to pass a
resolution, ask that the project be re¬
viewed, and ask for a report so the
project could be submitted by the com¬
mittee?
Under the gentleman’s amendment
there is nothing said about the local
people being required to furnish the
19^u . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
r5ghts-of-way or to maintain the project
when constructed; and with all the
deference to the gentleman, if he wants
the protection that has been given to
Binghamton extended the committee will
be delighted to do it. but under the rule
that obtains any projects in this bill must
first be considered by the engineers, re¬
ported on, and the report submitted to
the committee. Members of Congress
have the privilege of following this
course; but there is no way in which we
can include a project on which there is
no report.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I will yield,
certainly, but I do not want to take up
too much of the time of the Committee.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I know
the gentleman is sympathetic to the sit¬
uation. Will he yield for a question?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield for a
question; go ahead and propound your
question.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. The
gentleman’s committee has already
brought about flood-control work in the
city of Binghamton, and I know the gen¬
tleman is just as interested in sections a
few miles farther down. I want to ask
him if he does not feel that it is just as
fair to protect those people down there,
15 miles farther down the Susquehanna,
as it is to protect the people in the city
of Binghamton?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I shall be
pleased to answer the gentleman’s ques¬
tion, but I ask the indulgence of the
House for intruding on the committee’s
time. The projects submitted to the
committee and approved are contained
in the report submitted with this bill,
and all the hearings before the commit¬
tee are available. I repeat again that
we have not embraced in the report
made by our committee any project mi-
less it has been favorably reported by the
Chief of Engineers. In the absence of a
report to extend the adopted project in
the usual way I know of no reason why
an exception should be made.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Will the
gentleman yield once more?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. The
gentleman recalls, does he not, when I
came before his committee 3 or 4 years
ago and pointed out this very situation
it was as pressing then as it is now.
Scarcely a year passes but what this sec¬
tion is inundated, and I say that the
construction of flood walls would relieve
the condition.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Again I sug¬
gest to the gentleman that he come be¬
fore the committee and ask for a sm-vey;
but I trust the gentleman will not hold
the committee responsible for statements
made to the committee by Members of
Congress, including himself, the gentle¬
man from New York, because they are
interested in their districts. We are al¬
ways glad to have their views; but there
is a hard and fast procedure that must
be followed by everybody in Congress to
get a project included in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from New York.
The amendment was rejected.
Ml’. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows;
Amendment offered by Mr. Lemke: On page
12, line 20, strike out the last word “Pro¬
vided” and then strike out all of lines 21, 22,
and 23 and strike out the first 5 words in
line 24 and insert in lieu thereof the fol¬
lowing: ‘‘Provided, That the use for naviga¬
tion and related purposes, in connection
with this expanded general comprehensive
plan, of those waters of the Missouri River
which arise west of the ninety-seventh
meridian shall be subordinate to and shall
not adversely affect at any time the bene¬
ficial consumptive use, west of the ninety-
seventh meridian, of such waters for do¬
mestic, municipal, irrigation, mining, or in¬
dustrial purposes.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I reserve a point of order on the amend¬
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Mississippi reserves a point of order
on the amendment.
The gentleman from North Dakota is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his amendment.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment simply provides that the
States in the upper Missouri River Basin
shall have preference to their own waters
for domestic use and for irrigation. The
amendment applies only to the arid lands
of the Missouri River Basin west of the
ninety-seventh meridian.
I am aware that the chairman of this
committee has erroneously stated that
unless the amendment applies to the
whole of the United States it is uncon¬
stitutional. I challenge the correctness
of that conclusion and I say to him that
it is not unconstitutional, that under the
Constitution the Federal Government
has power to start in any part of the
United States of America in connection
with flood control and with navigable
streams. I say to him that the only
place in the Constitution of the United
States where he will find a provision to
the effect that the operation of laws must
be uniform throughout the Nation is in
the bankruptcy clause, naturalization
and taxation provisions.
The chairman therefore is mistaken
on the constitutional question, abso¬
lutely mistaken. The Government of
the United States is not limited by any
provision of the Constitution from oper¬
ating in any part of the United States
of America. It can make any classifica¬
tion it sees fit to of the subject matter
or the location in which it operates.
Mr. STEPAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LEMKE. I yield.
Mr. STEFAN. Does the gentleman
believe that proviso a good one which
reads ; “Nothing in this act shall be con¬
strued as creating below Sioux City any
demand on the water resources of the
river above Sioux City’’? Does not that
meet with his approval?
Mr. LEMKE. Ths^t does not meet with
my approval.
Mr. STEFAN. Would that take care
of the gentleman’s objection?
4299
Mr. LEMKE. No; it does not because
v/e have to go fm-ther in providing water
for irrigation in the upper Missouri River
Basin. This provision limits us to exist¬
ing law which is insufficient.
Mr. STEFAN. How about the words
“now authorized by existing law”?
Would that not satisfy the gentleman?
Mr. LEMKE. That will not satisfy us.
Under that provision they can take for
navigation every drop of water that we
need in dry years for irrigation purposes.
We would then be left high and dry with¬
out enough water even to give a cow a
good drink.
Mr. DONDERO. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. LEMKE. I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. DONDERO. I am sympathetic
with what the gentleman is trying to
avoid, but I am wondering if the purpose
of his amendment is not disposed of by
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Hampshire [Mr. Stearns]?
Mr. LEMKE. No, it is not, because
that is a State-right matter. We are
here dealing with a particular question
in a particular project, the Missouri
River Basin.
Let me show you why we are not satis¬
fied with the provisions of this bill. I
know that the chairman has said that
he is interested in irrigation, that he is
willing that we should keep all the water
for irrigation purposes so as to prevent
it from flooding the lower Mississippi
Valley. That is exactly what we want to
do. We want his cooperation in this
effort. We want him to help us to keep
the waters needed for irrigation in the
upper Missouri Basin. This so that we
can have it for domestic use and in order
to build up our ground-water level again,
that have fallen 52 feet in the last 50 or
75 years.
Mr. BURDICK. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. LEMKE. I yield to the gentleman
from North Dakota.
Mr. BURDICK. Section 4 says that
the Secretary of War is authorized to
sell for domestic and industrial use the
surplus water. That must mean there
is some water to be kept back and we are
going to get the surplus water, if any.
Mr. LEMKE. That is correct, but
there will be no surplus water and I
wish to give you the facts right now in
connection with that. For instance,
under existing law they could take
16,800,000 acre-feet a year, whereas we
have only 11,600,000 acre-feet in dry
years in the Missouri River Basin. That
is the difference in our conclusions and
that of the committee. It is for this
reason we are objecting to the present
existing law, which is a camouflage and
a hypocritical pretense to steal all the
water in the Missouri River in dry sea¬
sons in order to permit a few boats to
float down the Mississippi River.
Mr. BURDICK. In a year like that
there would be no surplus water?
Mr. LEMKE. There will not be a drop.
As a matter of fact, there will be a defi¬
ciency in the water supply.
I have no quarrel with the able chair¬
man of the Committee on Flood Con-
4300
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 9
trol; in fact, I admire his willingness
to listen.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 ad¬
ditional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. LemkeI?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, I am
willing to cooperate with the chairman
on flood control; I am opposed to floods,
I am opposed to the devastation caused
by floods, but I want him to understand
that for every dollar lost through
floods we lost a hundred by drought. I
want him to know that if he works with
us to keep this water which we intend
to use for irrigation and other purposes,
it will be the best way to prevent floods
in the lower Mississippi Valley. That
should be his aim and purpose as well as
ours.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has been
rushed in here before we have had an
opportunity to get the report of the
Bureau of Reclamation and I want to
quote now from H. W. Bashore, Com¬
missioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
in his report on the Missouri River Basin,
wliich report has just been released.
This bill should have waited until that
report was released and studied by the
members of the committee.
Mr. Bashore in his report states as
follows:
The reclamation plan proposes a total of
90 reservoirs with a combined capacity of
45,700,000 acre-feet, most of the reservoirs
on tributaries of the Missouri for use in
Irrigation, flood control, and power develop¬
ment, but two-thirds of the reservoir capac¬
ity on the main stream for use in flood
control, aid to navigation, power develop¬
ment, and irrigation.
When fully developed, the plan would pro¬
vide water for the irrigation of 4,760,400
acres of dry land, and supplemental water
for 538,000 acres of land now irrigated but
not assured adequate water in years of low
run-off. Seventeen power plants, in the
completed power system, would supply sea¬
sonal power for pumping water for irriga¬
tion, and nearly four billion kilowatt-hours
of firm power, annually, for domestic, com¬
mercial, and industrial uses.
The irrigation of numerous areas scattered
widely over the northern Great Plains and
over other semiarid sections of the Missouri
River Basin would add to an unavoidably
precarious dry farm and grazing economy
the stabilizing influence of lands with in¬
sured crops and high yields.
The droughts of the last decade cost
governmental agencies, principally Federal, a
total of $1,246,557,087, and these expendi¬
tures were inadequate to the needs, since
tens of thousands of families nevertheless
were forced to migrate from their abandoned
homes. These expenditures are roughly
equal to the cost of full utilization of the
waters of the Missouri River system. While
it is not contended that full use of these
waters will eliminate drought losses, it will
reduce the catastrophic effects and prevent
much of the human suffering.
Let US get this project and save the
flood waters for the upper Missouri River
Basin States in dry years. I realize we
are 48 States, but 1 Nation. If that 1
Nation is to lie preserved the rights of
these 48 States must be respected, even by
the Committee on Flood Control and by
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.
I may say that this battle has just begun.
This is just a skirmish. We are going to
win because justice will prevail in the
end. We are not going to take the water
from the people in the States where it
originated so that some fellow may float
a yacht down the lower Mississippi Val¬
ley, while the people and their cattle in
the upper regions go hungry on account
of the lack of food and water.
The chairman of the Committee on
Flood Control says that irrigation has
nothing to do with this bill. That the
bill will not interfere with irrigation.
Then why did he put that provision in
the bill that we are limited to existing
law? If it has nothing to do with it, why
have you not the courtesy, as you are so
unusually courteous on all occasions, to
put in this amendment that can do no
harm to the bill?
If it is true that this bill does not inter¬
fere with our irrigation projects, why not
put this simple little amendment in to
allay our apprehensions? I have in my
office hundreds of requests from Gover¬
nors, county commissioners, and from
various local communities in which the
fear is expressed that this bill will deprive
them of the local use of their own waters.
Why not allay their apprehensions?
I again beg the chairman of this com¬
mittee to be courteous enough to that
great area to accept this amendment.
I submit the following basic facts to
show that with a 6-foot channel there is
only enough water left to irrigate ap¬
proximately 2,778,000 acres, and that with
a 9-foot channel there would be no v/ater
at all left for irrigation.
Out of 15,768,000 acre-feet mean an¬
nual yield at Yankton:
Requirement with 6-foot channel
and reservoirs to regulate 20,-
000 1 by 2 by 240 (navigation
period) _ 9,600,000
Evaporation from reservoirs _ 1, 000, 000
Waste to coordinate flood control
with navigation _ 500, 000
Release during nonnavigation pe¬
riod for various uses _ 500, 000
Total _ _ - . . 11,600,000
15,768,000-11,600,000 = 4,168, 0 0 0
acre-feet for upstream domes¬
tic, industrial, and irrigation
use (for 2,778,000 acres) .
Requirements with 9-foot chan¬
nel and reservoirs to regulate
30,000 by 2 by 240 (navigation
period) _ 14, 800, 000
Evaporation _ 1, 000, 000
Waste _ 500, 000
Winter release _ 500, 000
Total _ _ _ 16,800,000
‘20,000 cubic second-feet converted to
acre-feet for the navigation period of 240
days per year.
This permits no irrigation development
at all.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that all de¬
bate on this amendment and all amend¬
ments thereto close in 25 minutes, the
last 5 minutes to be reserved by the
committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Whittington]?
There was no objection.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague the gen¬
tleman from Montana [Mr. O'Connor]
is unable, due to illness, to be here this
afternoon. You all know his interest in
irrigation, and I am sure, will well un¬
derstand his disappointment at not be¬
ing here.
Mr. Chairman, this House has been
hearing a good deal in the past few
months about irrigation and what it
means to those of us who live in the arid
and semiarid parts of the West. It was
with a great deal of pleasure that I lis¬
tened today to our distinguished ma¬
jority leader speak about the converts to
flood control in the New England dele¬
gations during the past 7 or 8 years. It
is with a great deal of pleasure that I
recall during our recent debate on the
river and harbor bill the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] getting up
and telling us that he had been out in
our part of the country, and because of
first-hand information on our needs he
thereby became a convert to irrigation
and its possibilities.
Mr. Chairman, to those of us who live
in the West, water is of the greatest im¬
portance. It is our basic natural re¬
source, and everything we do is predi¬
cated on its use. We are not unselfish
in looking after our own interests in this
respect because we know that the wise
use of the water which originates in our
area will not only benefit us but, in the
final analysis, the rest of the country as
well. Water is our lifeblood and v/ith-
out it we would wither away and die.
This is the fundamental factor to con¬
sider when debating bills of the nature
now before us,
If we are given the right to develop
and use our water resources we can and
will contribute not only to our own wel¬
fare and future but to that of the Nation
as v'ell.
We know that the Congress is becom¬
ing better acquainted with the problems
which confront us in the arid and semi¬
arid States, and we sincerely hope that
careful consideration will be given to our
needs. We, of the Rocky Mountain West,
come from the largest undeveloped area
in our country, but potentially we can
become one of the richest areas. We
can and we will work hand in hand with
the other regions in developing cur
country, because we want to see the Na¬
tion develop on a national scale. If our
needs are not considered or, if consid¬
ered, given only scant attention, not only
will we suffer but the rest of the Nation
will as well. There is no reason why a
sound, well integrated economy cannot be
equitably worked out between the Army
engineers and the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion so that the waters of the Missouri
and the Yellowstone can be utilized to
their fullest extent, first, for domestic
purposes, such as irrigation, mining, in¬
dustrial and municipal uses, and then
for flood control and navigation.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
We are interested in flood control,
especially in the lower reaches of the Mis¬
souri Valley, Basin, and we believe that
through letting us retain control of our
waters, building adequate storage facili¬
ties, and creating multiple purpose dams
where needed, we can facilitate the de¬
velopment of our area and others; we
can assist in flood control; and we can
thereby bring about a safe and sound
development in all sections. We of the
West have to fight all the time to retain
control of our natural resources. At
times it is discouraging because we are
so few in number. However, we do have
faith in the people’s body, the Congress,
and we look to you for a square deal and
the retention of our rights, especially in
the development of this particular com¬
modity, our greatest natural resource,
water.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana.
Gladly.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, as
the ranking member of the Committee
on Irrigation and Reclamation, I want
to say that the gentleman from Mon¬
tana [Mr. Mansfield] has been alert in
looking after the interests of his State
and all that section of the country
known as the intermountain region,
together with the great Northwest.
Especially do I wish to commend the
gentleman for lys very effective work in
connection v/ith the Hungry Horse Dam
in sponsoring that legislation.
I would like to add to what he has
already said this, that there is a differ¬
ence between that part of our country
lying west of the ninety-seventh merid¬
ian and other sections of the country,
not considering the three Pacific States.
We have in the intermountain region a
different water law.
The gentleman from Montana [Mr.
Mansfield 1 has properly emphasized
that difference wdth all of its meaning,
and I congratulate him and commend
him on his remarks and upon his legis¬
lative work.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. I
thank the distinguished gentleman
from Arizona. We both have the same
problems to contend with, because we
represent areas somewhat alike. I
should also like to call to the attention
of the House the fact that my colleague
from Arizona has always been of great
help to me not only with his sound ad¬
vice but v;ith his unerring ability to
guide legislation along the right path.
He is a true son of the West, a real legis¬
lator, a sound worker for his State, and
a distinct credit to his country. We are
fortunate ' that we have him with us
here.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my remarks
in the Record at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, again
the controversy prevails between those
representing States on the upper Mis¬
souri River and those who represent
States on the lower Missouri. We in
Missouri are interested in flood control
while those of you on the upper river are
interested in irrigation.
It seems to me as long as there is to
be a controversy between the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Chief of Engineers,
there will undoubtedly be a great delay
in advancing the flood-control projects
and likewise the benefits sought by the
States in the Northwest for the irriga¬
tion of their land and for other purposes
will be delayed. Some way should be
worked out to meet this situation. I am
not in favor of the suggestion of the
Secretary of the Interior to dump any
disputes that might arise in the lap of
the President for final decision. The
Congress should be big enough to meet
this situation. We have placed enough
responsibility on the President as it is
and, further, he would be the one that
would be subject to criticism no matter
what his decision might be.
Mr. Chairman, it was nearly 20 years
ago that I cast a vote on a flood-control
bill where there was a controversial issue
involved. The gentleman from Nebraska,
Mr. Sears, offered an amendment au¬
thorizing the construction of reservoirs
in connection with flood-control projects.
That was a very bitter issue at the time.
1 supported the amendment, which was
defeated by 10 votes. I had a reason for
supporting that amendment. It so hap¬
pened that in 1913 I came across the
country on the first Pennsylvania train
that was opened after the terrific floods
that caused so much damage in the State
of Ohio, especially in Dayton, Columbus,
and other cities. The train entered Co¬
lumbus on a temporary track. Homes,
bridges, farmhouses, and barns were up¬
side down. The railroad tracks were a
twisted mass of steel. Bridges were de¬
stroyed. From Columbus it was neces¬
sary to leave the main road and go north
about 95 miles, the tracks being under
water half of the way. We finally con¬
nected up with the northern branch of
the road and were able to proceed to
Washington, arriving many hours late.
Some years thereafter I drove from St.
Louis to Washington, and I passed over
2 tremendous flood-control dams. These
2 dams were constructed to prevent
a recurrence of that disaster. Three
additional dams were also constructed,
making 5 in all, and as I recall it the
engineer was a Dr. Morgan, who later
had something to do with the construc¬
tion of dams in the Tennessee Valley. It
is my understanding that since those
dams were constructed and fioodwaters
are stored, there has never been a dis¬
astrous flood in that area in Ohio. If
that be true, I felt if it could be done in
Ohio it could be done in other parts of
the country. We have spent hundreds
upon hundreds of millions of dollars in
an effort to control floods. Year by year
they continue; in fact, in the flood in
the Missouri and Mississippi Valley the
past few weeks it was more disastrous
than any flood that ever occurred in that
area. As I say, we want flood control for
the Missouri Valley and those of you in
the Northwest want irrigation. There
must be a way we can get together, and
the sooner the better for all concerned.
4301
Mr. Chairman, I have just read two
editorials on this subject, one in the St.
Louis Star-Times of May 3 and the other
in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of May 7.
Under the permission granted me, I in¬
clude these editorials:
[From the St. Louis Star-Times of May 3,
1944]
IT CAN BE DONE IN THE MISSOURI VALLEY
Visited at one and the same time by the
worst flood in a century and by David Lilien-
thal, Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority, St. Louis today dreams of an M. V.
A. — a vast Missouri River authority to control
floods, irrigate the plains, promote water¬
borne commerce, and develop electric power
for a rich inland empire.
It is a brave dream. But the danger is that
it may ebb with the flood. The T. V. A. did
not spring full-blown from some wishful
thinker’s brow. It is the result of 25 years
of hard work and hard fighting — fighting
that goes on even now in Washington.
Just as the Missouri is four times as long
as the Tennessee, so are the difficulties to be
overcome in the realization of an M. V. A.
enormously greater than those that stood in
the way of T. V. A. There were at least some
links of. common interest that held people in
the Tennessee Valley together. But what do
we people in St. Louis have in common with
the people who live in the foothills of the
Rockies where Red Rock Creek, the Beaver
Head, and the Jefferson come together to
form the second longest river of the conti¬
nent? Or, for that matter, how much do we
have in common with the wheat farmers of
the Dakotas and the corn growers of Nebraska
and Iowa?
Unfortunately, there are no romantic
stern-wheelers playing a song on their whis¬
tles that is known up and down this great
valley. Along this slash of water across the
prairies there is very little of the familiarity
which existed, in Mark Twain’s day, between
St. Louis and Memphis, Natchez, and New
Orleans. But what potentialities there are in
the cultivation of such an acquaintance.
Today Montana is not concerned about
floods, and Missouri does not give a whoop
about irrigation. But what gold could be
minted from this valley of ours if it were
realized up and down the whole length of
the river that a single Government-sponsored
agency could not only control floods and pro¬
vide water for Irrigation ditches, but could
also bring electric power plants and the in¬
dustries that go with them, a really naviga¬
ble channel and the trade that goes with it.
So long as sectional interests work only
for what they want, the river will continue
to flow through a long tunnel of “pork bar¬
rels,” but if ever all of us in this valley learn
to pool our desires and to make one organi¬
zation responsible for the satisfaction of all
of them, then Montana’s sorry drift toward
depopulation will be reversed and Missouri’s
rich black earth will no longer be flushed into
the Gulf.
As David Lilienthal said, the technical
problems of this transformation are not be¬
yond the resourcefulness of the engineers.
But first t’nere must be a common determi¬
nation to set the engineers to work for a
common purpose. This calls for men of vision
up and down the valley. The Tennessee had
its Senator Norris — paradoxically a man from
the valley of the Missouri — who worked and
preached until the dream of T. V. A. was an
actuality. We need hundreds of Norrises —
businessmen and farmers and ranchers and
public officials fired v/ith the dream of an
M. V. A., men determined to explain and to
plead, to organize and to fight until their
dream, too, is a reality.
The Army engineers have a plan on which
the technical structure of an M. V. A. can
be built just as soon as the war’s demands
abate and men and material are available for
4302
May 9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
work. But nothing will come of the plan un¬
til people up and down the valley join in the
common cause. When they do, it will be¬
come apparent that the great wealth which
this valley has already yielded is as nothing
to what it offers its people.
With the floodw’aters lapping at the termi¬
nal tracks and covering thousands and thou¬
sands of acres of farm land, St. Louis and
Missouri are challenged to light a torch, to
take the lead in a great movement not only
for the control but also for the full exploita¬
tion of the Missouri. The only question is
the old one:
Will the desire go up and go down with the
flood?
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of May
7, 1944]
ONE P.IVER PLAN IS THE NEED
The United States Army engineers’ Pick
plan for development of the Missouri River
is scheduled to come up in the House to¬
morrow, and with it wiil come an oppor¬
tunity for the upper and lower valley States
to put an end to their bickering and to
demonstrate that they can at last begin to
work together.
The plan, in its present form at least, is
not acceptable to the upper valley, which
believes, with good reason, that in the con¬
text of other legislation it is prejudicial to ir¬
rigation. The basis of the controversy is the
Army engineers’ attempt to have Congress
allot to navigation a fixed amount of water
equal to the greater part of the river’s annual
flow in the last 10 years.
The irrigation States very sensibly are de¬
termined not to stand peaceably by and see
navigation priorities put on water of which
they are entitled to some part for irriga¬
tion.
They have proposed various protective
measures, the latest of which is a suggestion
by Secretary Ickes that Congress lay down
the law that irrigation shall be paramount to
every other interest in the use of Missouri
River water.
The objection to this is that it would work
the same unfairness on flood control and
navigation that it is intended to prevent
from being worked on irrigation. To be
specific, what would happen if, in the face
of a flood descending the river, the Army
engineers wanted to release water from stor¬
age in order to make reservoir space avail¬
able for containing the flood, while the Rec¬
lamation Bureau wanted to keep the reser¬
voirs full because to do so would keep irri¬
gation interests paramount?
Secretary Ickes would have the President
resolve any such dispute. The fault in this
suggestion, of course, is that a moment when
disaster impends is no moment for arguing
what to do about it. If argument continues
long enough, nothing can be done about it.
As a general rule, it would be proper for
Congress to declare flood control, irrigation,
and navigation to rank in importance in
that order; but legislation should leave
enough latitude for engineers to operate the
system flexibly and in the best interests as
they appear at the moment of decision.
Is it not becoming obvious that two or
more antagonistic agencies — the Army engi¬
neers and Reclamation Bureau — cannot de¬
velop this valley without sacrifice of its total
resources, even though they declared an
armed truce? Is it not plain that only harm
will be produced if either the upper or the
lower valley attempts to force some plan
upon the other? We shall get somewhere
only when we agree on one plan for all of
us and one organization to which all will be
willing to entrust their interests.
[Mr. DIRKSEN addressed the Commit¬
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Appendix.]
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
was not listed among those requesting
recognition at the time debate was lim¬
ited.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I did not know there
was a limitation.
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. BURDICK. I was one of those
who rose to be assigned some time. Is
it possible for me to assign my time to
the gentleman from Nevada?
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
the gentleman from Nevada is recog¬
nized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I fa¬
vor the amendment to this bill (H. R.
4485) offered by the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. Lemke] . As a Mem¬
ber at large from Nevada, a typical arid-
land State west of the ninety-seventh
meridian, I feel that this Congress, by
express inhibition incorporated into this
bill, should terminate the executive and
judicial legislation which is aimed at the
destruction of the rights of the people to
the use of flowing waters for irrigation
and reclamation.
The only title the Federal Government
has to control flowing waters springs
from clause 3 of section 8 of article I of
the Constitution, giving to Congress the
power —
To regulate commerce with foreign nations '
and among the several States, and with the
Indian tribes.
That power has been exercised in the
improvement of navigable streams in the
interest of interstate commerce and the
public safety. It has never been express¬
ly extended in any statute to the control
o? any innavigable stream. An innavi¬
gable stream, by the force of the term it¬
self, cannot serve commerce whether in¬
terstate or local.
Under the riparian doctrine or the ap¬
propriation doctrine and under both doc¬
trines combined, from the time of the
Louisiana cession in 1803 and the Guada-
lupe-Hidalgo cession in 1848 and the ad¬
mission of Nevada in 1864, governments
never claimed the corpus of the water
at all or the right to the use of water, ex¬
cept as subordinate to the right of the
people, to use it for agricultural, do¬
mestic, and pow’er purposes. When Con¬
gress passed the Reclamation Act it pro¬
vided that the Interior Department
should conform to State laws in acquir¬
ing water rights to be held in trust for the
use of settlers.
The abuse sought to be checked here
is of modern origin. In the beginning
navigability was defined as navigability
in fact. But now it has been stretched
to cover streams potentially navigable or
formerly navigable, or to cover all the
miscellaneous tributaries, headw'aters,
and creeks that might conceivably aug¬
ment the firm or seasonal flow of a river
capable of carrying commerce. Under
recent decisions the definition of naviga¬
bility has been so whittled away as to
constitute a menace to all the rest of the
public who make use of flowing waters
for agricultural purposes. If this goes on
farms may be dried up and farmers wiped
out In aid of a mythical river-steamboat
trade so remote that its smoke will never
come within a hundred miles of the
farmers’ homes.
Mr. Chairman, we in the arid-land
States do not oppose commerce, al¬
though, outside of the railways, the high¬
ways, and the air transport, we see very
little of it west of the ninety-seventh
meridian. What we ask is protection of
irrigation and reclamation which has
built up the West under rights and cus¬
toms, enjoyed and followed imder the
riparian and appropriation doctrines.
We want protection through a positive
statutory inhibition, against a definition
of navigable waters that has no basis in
any statute thus far enacted. It seems
to me that when it comes to definitions.
Congress shouM be the fountainhead —
not the victim.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr.- Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield to the gentle¬
man from Arizona.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, time
has been limited on this amendment and
I shall have no opportunity to speak on
it, but I agree with the gentleman from
Nevada in his support of the Lemke
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog^
nizes the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Whittington].
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from North Dakota is the amendment
that was offered by him to the river and
harbor bill, applicable to that bill with
respect to navigation, and it was defeated
by the House. The substance of the
amendmient was embraced, as I have* al¬
ready pointed out, in the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire [Mr. Stearns]. With all due
deference, the amendment has no place
in the pending bill.
The language of the amendment is:
Provided, That the use for navigation and
related purposes in connection with this ex¬
panded general comprehensive plan.
The amendment was offered to the
river, and harbor bill and was consid¬
ered by the House, and that very amend¬
ment is now offered to this flood control
bill.
I am in sympathy with reclamation.
This amendment gives my friends from
the West an opportunity to proclaim
anew their devotion to reclamation on all
occasions. They have the privilege of
doing that. But in all kindness, this
amendment has no place in this bill.
Something has been said about the re¬
port of the Bureau of Reclamation. The
Chief of Engineers submitted this report.
There was a major flood not once, not
twice, but three times last year in the
Missouri River. My good friend the gen¬
tleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] just
returned from out West, made the same
address and the same speech, and you
know many good speeches can be made
just as applicable to one point in a bill as
to another. He spoke on this amendment
with respect to navigation. The House
did not agree with him. But with all due
kindness, the people along the Missouri
River from Sioux City to its mouth suf¬
fered last year not one flood but three
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
floods, and today they are suffering one
of the greatest floods in their history.
This project has been considered care¬
fully. We began hearings on the Pick
plan in May 1943, and we did not report
this bill until March 29, 1944. Moreover,
I say this bill provides for the expendi¬
ture of some $200,000,000, and the entire
Pick plan will cost something like $475,-
000,000 or $500,000,000.
Under this plan the pressing projects
are the ones that are essential for flood
control. They will have no reference to
any reservoir where there is a drought.
I sympathize with the drought sufferers.
We want the waters to stay up there to
eliminate droughts. The purpose is to
provide for flood control and for the stor¬
age of those waters in the main stem of
the river above Sioux City, when they
come, to prevent them from overflowing
the valley from Sioux City to the south.
Under the authorization of $200,000,000
every possible safeguard is thrown
around the reservoirs. There can be no
argument about the right to use the
waters on the tributaries of the Missouri
because the dams cannot hold water on
the main stem unless they empty from
the tributaries into the main stem.
The committee embraced in the bill
every possible precaution. I read from
the bill:
Nothing in this act shall be construed as
creating below Sioux City any demand upon
the water resources of the Missouri River
Basin above Sioux City in excess of that now
authorized by existing law.
Moreovir, as I pointed out in present¬
ing this bill on yesterday, the Supreme
Court of the United States has held that
the commerce clause of the Constitution
controls with respect to the waters, and
wherever there is a conflict with State
laws the Constitution must control.
The bill further provides in an effort
to be more than doubly fair, in an effort
to lean over to cooperate with Reclama¬
tion:
Tliat portions of the storage authorized
for the main stem of the river shall be
placed on tributaries if the Secretary of War
and the Chief of Engineers find such action
advisable for silt control and in order to
make more water readily available for agri¬
cultural and Industrial use without impair¬
ment of fiopd control below Sioux City and
without increasing the authorized limit of
cost.
The undisputed testimony before the
Committee on Flood Control in May 1943,
and since then, during the hearings, was
to the effect that if it had not been for
the Fort Peck Reservoir the floods at
Omaha, the floods at Sioux City, the
floods at Kansas City and below would
have been much higher. I respectfully
submit that if the doctrine that reser¬
voirs can detain and hold back flood
waters is to obtain in the United States
along the Ohio and its tributaries and
along the Connecticut River and its trib¬
utaries, that doctrine ought to obtain
along the Missouri River to protect the
people of that great basin, including the
States of North Dakota and South Da¬
kota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas,
and other States, to get the protection
accruing from reservoirs for flood con¬
trol that is accorded under other flood-
control projects adopted by the Congress
of the United States.
Let me say in conclusion, I did not
make the point of order and did not in¬
sist on it because, while the substance
of this bill has been defeated by the
House during the consideration of the
river and harbor bill and defeated by
the House today, and I read from the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New England, which I referred to
in my remarks, “And in the case of works
that might require the use of waters ris¬
ing west of the ninety-seventh meridian
in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Interior,” there are flood-control projects
in the Sacramento Valley, in the Wil¬
lamette Valley, and there are flood-
control projects along the Columbia
River and along other rivers in the West,
west of the ninety-seventh meridian, and
in my judgment, the amendment is not
applicable. This plan is fundamentally
flood control and not navigation, and
every possible use of the water is safe¬
guarded under the provisions of this bill
because the bill declares in no uncertain
language that the right to the water
along all the tributaries of the Missouri
River shall be recognized.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman certainly knows this amend¬
ment would not be subject to a point of
order.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I told you I had
withdrawn the point of order, but I say
this amendment was defeated. How
many times does an amendment have
to be defeated before it will be no longer
offered? That was the only point I had
in making reference to it.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
Lemke], the author of the amendment.
Mr. LEMKE. Why do you not accept
our amendment? Why do you wish to
limit us to the excess waters under the
existing law, which I have pointed out
to you and which your committee knows,
under the committee bill would be no
water at all in dry years?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Your colleague,
the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
Burdick], spoke yesterday about there
being a drought out there. We can do a
lot, but Congress cannot make it rain.
It cannot make the snows come down.
The only, way North Dakota is going to
be relieved of drought — and other West¬
ern States — is for the snows to fall and
for the rains to descend. What we want
you to do is to keep those waters, whether
they be from the snow or the rain, along
the tributaries to relieve that area and
prevent the flooding of the valleys below.
Mr. LEMKE. Why do you not adopt
our amendment? That is exactly what
we want to do.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have great re¬
spect for the gentleman.
Mr. LEMKE. If you agree with us,
why do you not adopt the amendment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have care¬
fully considered the gentleman’s amend¬
4303
ment with all its ramifications, but it is
not applicable to every bill that comes
along. It has been defeated once in the
consideration of the river and harbor
bill a few weeks ago and has been de¬
feated substantially by the House today
in defeating the Stearns amendment,
and I think it should be withdrawn.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD of Montana. It is
true that Congress cannot make the rain
or snow, but Congress can build reser¬
voirs up there, not only to help irrigation,
but to reclaim land and to help control
floods down in the valley.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. There is noth¬
ing on earth in this bill that will prevent
the Bureau of Reclamation building res¬
ervoirs in addition to those authorized
in this bill, if approved and appropriated
for by Congress. But it will take $175,-
000,000 of the $200,000,000 herein au¬
thorized to provide levees to be con¬
structed to protect the Missouri River
Valley from Sioux City down to its
mouth.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend¬
ment be defeated.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I am
opposed to this amendment. It has no
place in a flood-control bill. Rather, let
us look at some facts pertaining to the
Missouri River.
The Missouri River Basin embraces
.approximately one-sixth of the total
area of the United States. Between
Sioux City, Iowa, and the mouth of the
Missouri River there are about 1,800,000
acres of land subject to flooding at ex¬
treme stages. Most of this area is under
cultivation at the present time and in¬
cludes some of the most fertile and pro¬
ductive land in the world. The principal
crops grown are corn, wheat, barley, rye,
oats, alfalfa, and garden produce. Al¬
though the land is highly productive
floods on the Missouri River have always
constituted a serious hazard to farming.
Previous to the construction of river im¬
provement works the land was not only
subject to floods but to damage by bank
erosion and cut-offs. The threat from
bank erosion and cut-offs has now been
removed by the river stabilization works
but the flood hazard still remains. The
principal cities subject to flooding are
Kansas City, Mo., Kansas City, Kans.,
Council Bluffs, Iowa, Omaha, Nebr., and
Sioux City, Iowa. In addition to these
cities there are over 50 smaller munici¬
palities which are already or partially
vulnerable to floods along the main stem
of the Missouri River. At Sioux City,
Iowa, a city of over 80,000 population, a
portion of the business district is subject
to flooding and also a large part of the
stockyards, railroad facilities, and some
manufacturing and industrial establish¬
ments.
In the upper part of the river the high¬
est flood of record was caused by the
March rise in 1881, Practically the en¬
tire area from bluff to bluff was inun¬
dated from Sioux City, Iowa, to St,
Joseph, Mo., and the river was above
flood stage all the way to the mouth. In
No. 82 - 7
4304
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 9
addition to the damage caused by the
water itself, there was a great deal of
damage done by the cutting and crush¬
ing action of huge cakes of ice as they
were swept down stream. This flood
caused millions of dollars of damage.
In the lower part of the river the high¬
est flood of record was caused by the
June rise in 1844. This flood also pro¬
duced stages in the upper part of the
river approaching those of the 1881 flood.
Reliable records of the damage caused by
this flood are not available. The next
highest flood of record in the lower part
of the river was caused by the June rise
in 1903. This flood paralyzed commerce,
industry, and communications for weeks
and caused millions of dollars of damage
at the Kansas Citys alone. The total
direct damage diming this flood between
Sioux City and the mouth was over
$10,000,000.
In addition to the floods of 1844, 1881,
and 1903 there have been many other
severe floods between Sioux City and the
mouth, such as those which occurred
during 1908, 1909, 1915, 1927, 1935, 1942,
and 1943. In fact, there is flooding of
some consequence practically every year
on the Missouri River between Sioux City
and the mouth.
The floods of 1943 inundated about
1,000,000 acres of land, of which about
200,000 acres were flooded for the second
time. On about 600,000 acres the flood¬
ing prevented the production of the nor¬
mal crop, and on about 300,000 acres it
may require from 1 to 3 years before the
land can be placed into full normal crop
production. Highways and railroads in
the river valley suffered heavily. Practi¬
cally every agricultural levee between
Sioux City and the mouth was either
overtopped, breached, or otherwise seri¬
ously damaged. These floods of 1943
caused damage of about $35,000,000 along
the main stem of the river between Sioux
City and the mouth.
The amount expended under pro¬
visions of section 5 of the 1941 Flood Con¬
trol Act amounted to approximately
$300,000. All this effort and expense was
nullified by the 1943 floods. In addition,
the engineer department expended over
$800,000 for rescue and emergency work
during the 1943 floods, Tlie estimated
cost of restoring the levees damaged dur¬
ing these floods to their original degree
of protection is approximately $1,800,000.
In an attempt to provide flood protec¬
tion for their lands local interests have
constructed levees and drainage works
throughout the breach from Sioux City
to the mouth at an estimated expendi¬
ture in excess of $20,000,000. However,
the levees are generally inadequate to
protect against any except the minor
floods and have not been constructed in
accordance with any unified correlated
plan. These local interests are anxious
to secure a much greater degree of pro¬
tection than they now have but are con¬
vinced that the problem is of such mag¬
nitude that the burden must be assumed
by the Federal Government. Although a
considerable increase in the amount of
protection now afforded can be provided
by levees it is impracticable to provide
complete protection against all past
floods by levees alone.
There is no question but that addi¬
tional flood protection for the Missouri
Valley Basin is needed and justified and
the general comprehensive plan for flood
control as proposed by the Chief of Engi¬
neers of the United States Army would
seem to be the solution. The plan pro¬
posed would provide for a series of levees
and appurtenant works along both sides
of the Missouri River from Sioux City to
the mouth, supplemented by the presently
authorized reservoirs in Nebraska, Kan¬
sas, and Missouri and additional mul¬
tiple-purpose reservoirs. By these pro¬
posed improvements not only would large
flood damages be prevented along the
Missouri River and its tributaries and
the Mississippi River but also floodwater
would be retained for their best uses for
all purposes, including irrigation, navi¬
gation, power, domestic and sanitary
purposes, wildlife, and recreation. Con¬
sidering the large benefits of tangible
nature and special intangibles as the sav¬
ing of human lives, the alleviation of
suffering, stabilization of economic life
of the valley, and encouragement of in¬
dustrial and civic developments, the
Army engineers have concluded that the
plan herein proposed is entirely justified.
In this connection it may be stated that
the proposal is for a progressive improve¬
ment to be undertaken by steps as con¬
ditions warrant and the availability of
funds permits.
Recurrence of floods as above enumer¬
ated and the occurrence of still larger
floods are to be anticipated unless pre¬
ventative measures are undertaken. The
flood problem is a serious one and the
large expenditures to remedy it are
justified.
We are asking you to protect the
bread basket of the world from the rav¬
ages of floods. In these days when we
are stressing food production, the pro¬
tection of food-production centers must
be given serious consideration. The to¬
tal value of the area subject to floods
between Sioux City and the mouth of
the river, including all fixed and mov¬
able property, has been estimated to be
about $1,000,000,000. One large flood or
a series of floods might well wipe out
this entire investment. More important
than the consideration of monetary val¬
ues is the fact that adequate flood pro¬
tection would mean the saving of lives
and the alleviation of human suffering.
We should all be interested in securing
this sound development program which
is based upon the safeguarding of the
Interests of all of the people of the Mis¬
souri River Basin.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from North Dakota tMr. Lemke].
The question was taken; and on a divi¬
sion (demanded by Mr. Lemke) there
were — yeas 47, nays 50.
Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair
appointed Mr. Whittington and Mr.
Lemke to act as tellers.
The Committee again divided ; and the
tellers reported there were — yeas 52, nays
59.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. McKenzie. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to be heard at this
point and to revise and extend my re¬
marks.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE IN LOUISIANA
Mr. McKenzie. Mr. Chairman, yes¬
terday I had occasion to take this floor
and urge adoption of the rule to bring
H. R. 4485 before this House for consid¬
eration. Today I want to speak for the
bill the passage of which has become one
of the most urgent and important pieces
of legislation in the interest of the safety,
welfare, and development of the lower
Mississippi Valley yet proposed.
Many people think of flood control
only in the terms of levees or dikes built
along the banks of streams in the hope
of controlling the fiocdwaters that come
in the spring. For more than a century
now the people of the lowlands have re¬
sorted to levees in their attempt to con¬
trol the waters that inundate their lands
at floodtime. The first levees were con¬
structed by the individual landowner and
calculated to protect the most important
fields of his plantation or farm from the
encroachment of backwater or the flood¬
ing of local streams in times of excessive
rainfall. These levees were makeshift
and patchwork and, while partially effec¬
tive, did not protect the lands from inun¬
dation in the years when the floodwaters
from the upper reaches of ttie Missis¬
sippi, Missouri, and Ohio Valleys came in
such volume that they could not be con¬
tained in the river channel.
Gradually the farmers and landowners
began to band together and help one an¬
other build community levees that were
calculated to relieve several tracts of
land. From this was evolved the local
levee districts that built levees along the
low banks of streams in an effort to hold
the water back from their particular sec¬
tion. The fellow up above dumped his
water on the man below, or the man be¬
low might in times of great danger resort
to the extreme of cutting the levee above,
below or across the river at whatever
point seemed to him to offer the best
prospect of keeping the water off of his
particular section. Naturally chaos and
animosities were rampant. Finally the
States and their political subdivisions
took an interest and brought some sem¬
blance of order and cooperation. How¬
ever, the problem was not yet solved.
The floods still came and they still do.
However, with the better order that came
with the recognition of the problem as
being one that effected the economy and
welfare of entire States better engineer¬
ing was applied, studies of vast compre¬
hension were undertaken until finally it
was recognized that the matter was not
one for just local communities or even
the States, but that it affected the wel¬
fare, health and the economy of the en¬
tire Nation. Floods bring with them not
merely the inundation of a vast area in
the lowlands; they bring death by drown¬
ing to the populace, to the livestock, the
poultry, to the wild life of the areas
affected, but they also bring the destruc¬
tion of homes, barns and buildings that
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
1944
are either washed away or covered with
water that does untold damage. Flood-
waters when in torrent from crevasses
cause, in some cases, erosion and the
complete destruction of once-fertile
fields, in others a deposit of silt and muck
may render those fields sour and impos¬
sible of cultivation for several years de¬
pending on how long the water stood on
the fields and the type of silt or muck
deposited. And so it became evident that
the problem was not only one of flood
control but also of drainage and flood
prevention.
Some years ago the Army engineers
began to make a study of these problems.
They recognized that we must have not
only levees but we must also have res¬
ervoirs controlled by dams and flood¬
gates to impound the floodwaters, or part
of them, and hold them back until the
streams below could take care of the
water. To spged the flow of the waters i
and niake it txjssibip tnr the .streams to.
handle the vast volume, it became appar¬
ent that drainage was also an int^al
part of flood control. River and bayou
cTiaanels had to be widened, deepened,
straightened, and cleared of debris and
Obstructions giving the floodwaters a
right-of-way, so to speak, in order that
they would not spread out over the banks
of the streams and either inundate or/
so saturate the land that it would be im-|
possible of cultivation and use. I
This bill, H. R. 4485, is calculated to
make provisions for these things. The
Army engineers, the Mississippi River
Commission, and the Flood Control
Committee of this House have done an
extensive and magnificent job of study
and preparation. They have prepared a
bill that is nonsectional and nonpolitical.
They have made a comprehensive study
of the major needs of the Nation as a
whole and have tried to Incorporate those
needs into one omnibus bill and now ask
this House to approve of their labors.
We should do so, even if some of the de¬
tails are not just as much as we would
like. We should bear in mind that these
proposals are a bit of vitally needed post¬
war planning laying a pattern of drain¬
age, reclamation, and flood control that
will give homes and employment to thou¬
sands upon thousands of our men and
women now in the armed forces and in
war industries, and at the same time add¬
ing millions upon millions of dollars to
the value and productiveness of our
lands.
Why, in my own district, the Fifth
Congressional District of Louisiana,
there is a drainage provision that will
reclaim and restore to productiveness
several million acres of the finest, richest
soil on earth — land that has a topsoil,
not of 6 or 8 inches but of 6 to 10 feet,
in a climate that is incomparable for
year-round cultivation of fruits, vege¬
tables, and produce. The provision for
the clearing, straightening, deepening,
and widening of the Boeuf, the Tensas,
the Black, and Ouachita Rivers, and of
Colwar Creek, Big Creek, and Bayou
Lafourche and Bayou Macon, a project
that is estimated to cost the Government
but $5,013,000, should bring many times
that sum to the people in the productive¬
ness of the reclaimed lands each year.
The fact that the water from local rains i
and backwater can run off quickly will /
permit the soil to be rid of its water/
saturation and permit the farmer to get
into his fields many weeks earlier, all of
which is an untold benefit. However, £
not only are these benefits accruing to
the farmer and landowner but also, by
draining off the local waters and permit¬
ting the streams to return to normal
levels, the land will be much drier and,
both the land and the streams will bej
able to take care of far greater volumea
of flood waters when they come. • •
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I say to you that
flood control and drainage are one and
jiiyeiiarablfci. To" have adequate flood)
^nlroi we must also have adequate and
efBcient drainage. This bill makes the
first provision for steps in that direction,
and I urge the passage of this bill, which
provides $5,013,000 for the above-named
streams and further provides a sum of
$3,800,000 for the Red-Ouaehita River
Basin, a total of $8,813,000 for north
Louisiana to help prevent the further
preventable loss of life and the loss of
property due to floods. *
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I addressed
myself to this bill and someone enthusi¬
astically acclaimed the benefits which
were being received by the upper Ohio
Valley as the result of this flood-control
program. Now there is one aspect of it
that disturbs me. However, if the chair¬
man of the committee would be good
enough to listen to my question, he might
be able to explain it. Yesterday my col¬
league from Pennsylvania [Mr. Trout¬
man] addressed himself to the power as¬
pect of these dams that are going to be
constructed along the Youghiogheny
River.
Also, my colleague from Pennsylvania
[Mr, T^bbott] took up the matter with
me, and he also expressed his concern.
I see before me the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr, Weiss] and the gen¬
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley]
who is in the coal business himself and
who has a great many coal miners work¬
ing in his district.
I am not taking the position that I am
opposed to waterpower, because I am not
in all instances, but I feel where coal is
available in great quantities and handy,
it is quite possible that power can be
obtained just as cheaply, if not more so,
from coal in our neighborhood than from
waterpower.
I am told by the chairman of the com¬
mittee that this is not a power project
and that, although penstocks are con¬
structed in these dams, in order for any
power to be used or any machinery or
equipment installed to obtain power
from these dams, further legislation
must be obtained from the Congress.
It is on that understanding, which I
would like the gentleman from Missis¬
sippi to confirm now, that I intend to
support this bill.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. In response to
the gentleman's question I will state
that is the policy that was announced
In the presentation of this bill. The
dams are primarily for flood control.
In some cases power is authorized inci-
4305
dentally; there is no provision for the
sale and distribution. The policy ob¬
tains, not only in the gentleman’s area
along the Ohio River and its tribu¬
taries, but elsewhere in the country, it
is the conviction of this committee that
these projects, if they are to be used for
the sale and distribution of power, are
to be passed on by the Congress later.
There is provision for the generation of
power in a few of the projects, but it is
incidental and there is no provision for
distribution facilities in any of the
projects.
Mr. WRIGHT. And I would like to
ask the gentleman this question. Is it
not correct, then, that if these projects
are to be used for any power or if any
generation equipment is installed, fur¬
ther legislation by the Congress will be
necessary?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have so
stated. Where power is provided to any
extent in or along the tributaries of the
Ohio, I believe further authorizations
will have to be made before any power
is generated, or in my opinion all the
authorization will be used for projects
in which there is no power.
Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the pro forma
amendment, and I ask to proceed out of
order for 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Doughton]?
There was no objection.
Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, on
yesterday the gentleman from New Jer¬
sey [Mr. McLean], a member of the Com¬
mittee on Ways and Means, stated that
the simplification bill, passed by the
House on last Thursday, will raise an ad¬
ditional $2,000,000,000 of revenue, and at
the same time he released a copy of his
statement to the press. I felt it my duty
to prepare for the press a complete an¬
swer to the charges made by the gentle¬
man from New Jersey [Mr. McLean] . In
view of the fact that the House passed
the simplification bill without a single
dissenting vote, including the vote of the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Mc¬
Lean] , I feel it my duty to bring this mat¬
ter to the attention of the House.
Both the staff of the Joint Committee
on Internal Revenue Taxation and the
Treasury Department agree that the esti¬
mate in our committee report is correct.
The bill will result in a loss of revenue
amounting to approximately $60,000,000
instead of a gain of $2,000,000,000.
The changes made by the bill on
exemptions, rates, deductions, definitions
of dependents all affect the revenue.
Some changes result in increases of reve¬
nue and some result in revenue decreases.
The net result is estimated to be a loss
of $60,000,000.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
McLean] has confused and misused the
figures upon which his estimates are
based. The change in the definition of
dependents would alone result in a reve¬
nue loss of $290,000,000, but he neglects
to figure the loss which would result from
increasing the dependent credit from
$350 to $500. This is an increase of $150
for each dependent, and there are
20,000,000 dependents. His calculation
4306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
that the tax base will be increased by
$4,000,000,000 neglects this important in¬
crease in the amount of dependent allow¬
ances.
For estimates we must rely upon the
information supplied by our actuaries.
Neither the gentleman from New Jersey
LMr. McLean] nor I know all the details.
All of our actuaries agree on the revenue
effects of the bill as given in the commit¬
tee’s report.
I do know, however, that the gentle¬
man from New Jersey [Mr. McLean] is
wrong when he implies that many of
the 9,000,000 Victory taxpayers will be
subject to surtax under the simplification
bill. Actually about the same number,
or even fewer, taxpayers will be subject
to the surtax. I also know that he is
wi'ong again when he talks about “velvet”
when speaking of the tax receipts for
1944. According to the estimates of our
actuaries, the taxes for 1944 will be $60,-
000,000 less, not $2,000,000,000 more, than
under present law.
I trust that nobody will believe that a
responsible committee of the House
would attempt to deceive the member¬
ship of the House or the American peo¬
ple. We would be deceiving the Members
of the House and the public if the gentle¬
man from New Jersey were right. Mr.
McLean’s premises being wrong, his con¬
clusions must necessarily be wrong.
The -statement of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. McLean] is such an
unwarranted attack upon the intelli¬
gence of our committee and upon the
capabilities of our actuaries that I, feel
that I cannot let it go unchallenged.
Mr. GAVIN. I offer an amendment,
which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows;
Amendment offered by Mr. Gavin: On page
16, between lines 22 and 23, insert the fol¬
lowing: “That the general comprehensive
plan for flood control and other purposes,
approved in the Flood Control Act of June 28,
1938, for the Ohio River Basin, is hereby
modified to include the construction of flood-
control works for the protection of Rldgway,
Johnsonburg, St. Marys, and Brockway and
vicinity in the State of Pennsylvania."
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will the gen¬
tleman yield?
Mr. GAVIN. I yield.
Mr. WHIT'TINGTON. As I under¬
stand the amendment is an extension of
an existing adopted project, and that
amendment has been prepared by the
Office of the Chief of Engineers, and he
submitted a statement that it is author¬
ized as an extension of an existing project
on which we have conducted hearings.
Mr. GAVIN. That is correct.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I have not had
an opportunity to present it to the com¬
mittee, but I will say to the gentleman
that as far as I am concerned I see no
objection to the amendment, under those
circumstances, because it is merely an
extension of an adopted project, hereto¬
fore approved by the committee and
Congress.
Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, in view of
the statement of the distinguished
chairman of the committee, I rest my
case and offer no statement on my
amendment as I do not wish to take up
the time of the membership of the House,
and ask that action be taken on the
amendment immediately.
I want to compliment the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi for the ex¬
cellence of his work on this flood-control
legislation. He has earned and deserves
the hearty commendation of the Mem¬
bers of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment, which is at the
desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Allen of Illi¬
nois: Page 11, line 12, after the word “In",
Insert “Plan B”; and in line 13, page 11, strike
out “$300,000” and Insert “$2,623,600.”
[Mr. ALLEN of Illinois addressed the
Committee. His remarks will appeal’
hereafter in the Appendix.]
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
may I ask if there are any other bona
fide amendments to this section?
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Mr. Chair¬
man, I have an amendment.
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
I have another amendment to this sec¬
tion.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to be recognized on the amendment at
this time and had hoped I might con¬
tinue for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that all de¬
bate on this section and all amendments
thereto close in 20 minutes, 5 minutes
to be reserved to the committee, and
the gentleman fom Illinois to be recog¬
nized for 7 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] is recognized
for 7 minutes.
[Mr. DIRKSEN addressed the Com¬
mittee. His remarks will appear here¬
after in, the Appendix.]
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition to the amendment of¬
fered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr,
Allen].
Mr. Chairman, it is a fundamental
thing in flood control that the benefits
must exceed the cost, otherwise the Fed¬
eral Government would be justified, ks it
has in some cases, in buying the town
and moving it up the hill. It has done
that In Illinois.
The amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from Illinois [Mr. Allen], and I
know he is greatly interested, covers a
report submitted in 1941. It has been
before the Congress and the committee
for nearly 2 years. The committee con¬
sidered the report, adopting the recom¬
mendation of the Chief of Engineers, and
it provided for the plan that he recom¬
mended. He recommended that plan B
embraced in the amendment of the gen¬
tleman from Illinois be not adopted be¬
cause, as he said, the cost of that plan
would be twice the amount of the bene¬
fits, as I recall.
Mr. Chairman, if we propose to make
an exception in one case, you let the
bars down and you crucify the sound,
fundamental principles of flood control,
whether it be in Illinois or Mississippi.
In all fairness, I may say that I brought
this amendment before the committee
today and we point out to you now as we
pointed out then to my good friend the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Allen],
that this amendment would adopt plan
B, costing about $2,600,000, according to
the report, and the amendment only au¬
thorizes $400,000, which is absolutely
contradictory.
I sympathize with the situation. The
committee leaned over backward to help.
The language of the committee is as fol¬
lows:
Is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendation of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document 336, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $300,000. Under this language
while the local Interests would not be relieved
from making the contribution and giving the
assurances required, if the cost of the project
was actually $400,000 or $418,000, the project
would be authorized inasmuch as the term
“estimated cost” is sufficient to care for the
actual cost.
The committee considered this amend¬
ment. We submitted it to the Chief of
Engineers. He said that at the time he
submitted his report in 1941 these two
factories were not engaged in war work.
He further said that in the event it now
develops that it would be economically
possible and economically justified to ex¬
tend the works, under the discretion
given to him, and if the cost would not
exceed the benefits, he could do it under
the language of the act which author¬
izes substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers, which recommendations adopted
by the committee require the local inter¬
ests to contribute, maintain, and give the
assurances contained in the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in said
document, as provided in the bill. I ap¬
peal to my very good friend, the gen¬
tleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen], a
member of the Appropriations Commit¬
tee, and I may say I have been in sym¬
pathy with the program to conserve pub¬
lic expenditures and to reduce the high
cost of government and to eliminate all
waste and extravagance. The gentle¬
man from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Allen]
have now asked us to include a project
where the cost, according to our report
and hearings, exceeds the benefits.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WHITUNGTON. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Why, we do not quar¬
rel with the benefits.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Your question,
please.
Mr. DIRKSEN. We do not quarrel
with the benefits theory at all. It is only
that if these two plants are kept out,
additional work will have to be done
later on, and perhaps it will cost more
than we are asking for at the present
time.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentleman
has covered that in his statement and I
say in all fairness to the other Members
of the House that the language of this
authorization is broad enough so that if
the gentleman and the Government
through the Chief of Engineers, repre¬
senting the people, find that he would be
justified in substantially completing this
project in order to protect those indus¬
tries, those two manufacturing plants
and a small residential area, he would be
justified in making an extension with¬
out the amendment, or an additional
authorization, provided the local inter¬
ests made the contributions and fur¬
nished the assurances contained in the
recommendations of the Chief of En¬
gineers in said report, and as required in
the bill.
In all fairness and equity I ask that the
amendment be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle¬
man from Illinois [Mr. Allen].
The question was taken; and the Chair
announced that the noes prevailed.
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
1 demand tellers.
Tellers were refused.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
I offer another amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Allen of Illi¬
nois: Page 11, line 13, after the word “of”,
strike out “$300,000” and Insert “$418,000.”
[Mr. ALLEN of Illinois addressed the
Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
the gentleman’s amendment substitutes
$418,000 for $300,000. That is a distinc¬
tion without a difference, because its es¬
timated cost is $300,000. If it costs
$200,000 under that estimate why the
project will be constructed and if it costs
$350,000 it will be constructed. So far
as I am concerned, I have no objection,
and I have conferred with the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Clason] on
this amendment and he has no objection.
The estimated cost of $300,000 in the bill
is to cover the estimated cost of the proj¬
ect as recommended by the Chief of Engi¬
neers. It does not include protection for
the two manufacturing industries or for
a small residential area, as I recall. As
stated, if the Chief of Engineers now
finds that the cost of protecting these two
factories and the other area will not ex¬
ceed the cost of construction under the
language of the bill without an addi¬
tional authorization provided the local
interests made the contributions and
gave the assurances for maintenance and
as otherwise required by the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers even
though the estimated cost of the project
as approved or as extended actually ex¬
ceeded $300,000, it could be constructed.
So I repeat that under the discretion the
matter of the estimated cost is not hard
and fast. It will probably cost $418,000
for the Federal works if the project is
extended, provided the local contribu¬
tions and assurances required in the rec¬
ommendations of the Chief of Engineers
are furnished by the local interests. By
substituting $418,000 for $300,000, no
waiver is made of the local contributions
required in the bill and in the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Allen],
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Mr. Chair¬
man, I offer an amendment, which I send
to the Clerk’s desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amenciment offered by Mr. J. Leroy John¬
son; On page 20, following the heading “San
Joaquin River”, in line 12, insert the follow¬
ing paragraph:
“The project for Farmington Reservoir on
Littlejohn Creek, enlargement of Hogan Res¬
ervoir on Calaveras River, and related protec¬
tion works is authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
545, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $3,868,200.”
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Mr.
Chairman, the reason I am offering this
amendment is that the project has been
approved by all governmental agencies
involved. There have been full and
complete hearings on the matter, and
the only reason it was not incorporated
in the bill is because the report has not
actually been printed. The hearings will
be found in volume 1, pages 313 and 383,
and in volume 2, pages 597, 599, and 603.
The amendment was prepared by the
Army engineers. Every single depart¬
ment, the Bureau of the Budget, the
Reclamation Service, everyone con¬
cerned, have approved the report, which
is House Document 545, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session.
I think I am justified in asking you to
approve this amendment and include it
in the bill. My people come here in good
grace. We have spent over $2,000,000 of
our own money — that is, the little city of
Stockton — in flood-control work along
the Calaveras River. We have spent over
a quarter of a million dollars in mainte¬
nance and operation, and the Govern¬
ment engineers have made a study of
this project and determined that to have
complete flood control for the city of
Stockton and the surrounding area, these
two streams should be controlled as set
out in the report. It seems to me that
is a very reasonable request to make of
the committee.
I want to thank the chairman and the
committee most heartily for their very
courteous attention to me and the op¬
portunity they afforded me and my con¬
stituents to be heard before the com¬
mittee. But we have complied with the
spirit of the law. The only obstruction
that I can see to this amendment is the
fact that we have not technically had the
document printed and lying on the
Speaker’s desk. The document is re¬
ferred to in the amendment and, as I
say, every single governmental step re¬
quired and the acquiescence of every
single governmental agency required has
been obtained.
I respectfully suggest if you put it in
this bill and there was anything wrong
or anything should slip, that can be
taken out over on the Senate side. As
I say, I know that every requirement,
every approval, every survey, every re-
4307
port to make it effective and to comply
with the rules of the House has been
complied with, and I most respectfully
and urgently request the committee to
adopt this amendment and place it in the
bill. _
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I feel most sympathetic with the proj¬
ect of my good friend the gentleman from
California [Mr. J. Leroy Johnson]. Un¬
der the general rule, the committee did
not hear Members of Congress unless the
project had been favorably reported. In
all fairness, there had been a delay in
reporting some projects in California,
and while this project had not been sub¬
mitted to the Congress, in an effort to
help our colleague the gentleman from
California [Mr. J. Leroy Johnson] we
permitted him to testify.
If you will turn to the hearings you
will find that I said to him that we had
gone out of our way. We heard his testi¬
mony, and we were not following the
usual course. We said to him at the time,
in substance: “Until and unless the re¬
port is transmitted to the Congress, un¬
til and unless we have the engineers to
analyze that report, to 'he satisfaction
of the committee, the project cannot be
included in the bill.”
Now the report has been submitted to
the Congress. It has not come to the
committee.. We have not conducted the
same analytical hearing on that that we
have conducted on other projects, inas¬
much as the report has not been printed
as yet.
In addition to that let me say to the
gentleman from California that since
this bill was reported, other projects
have been reported to the Congress, and
we have said to others of our friends:
“The only way that your project can be
included in the bill is for you to go be¬
fore the Committee on Commerce in the
Senate, where they will have the report,
where the report can be analyzed and
hearings can be conducted, and your
project, if recommended by the Chief of
Engineers, will be included, we are sure,
in the Senate.”
If the gentleman’s amendment is
adopted, there will be a dozen other
projects discriminated against. With all
kindness, let me suggest to the gentle¬
man that he withdraw his amendment.
If he goes before the Senate Committee
on Commerce and the committee in¬
cludes his amendment, I think the con¬
ference committee would be justified in
insisting that the amendment be agreed
to. Unless that is done, there is nothing
for this committee and the House to do
except insist upon the rule that the gen¬
tleman should take the same course as
all other Members of Congress and as all
other projects have taken.
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Mr. Chair¬
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Will the
chairman say for the record that he is
wilhng to support this amendment in the
Senate if the document is printed?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I have already stated, in all fairness—
and I usually do what I say — that if this
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
4308
amendment is included in the Senate,
and if the recommendation for the proj¬
ect is favorably reported by the Chief of
Engineers and I am on the conference
committee, I think it should be agreed
to. As stated, I suggest that the amend¬
ment be withdrawn.
Mr. J. LEROY JOHNSON. Mr. Chair¬
man, I ask unanimous consent to with¬
draw my amendment.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is a fine
spirit and I enjoy it a lot.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog¬
nizes the gentleman from South Da¬
kota [Mr. Case],
(Mr. CASE asked for and was given
permission to extend his remarks in the
Record.)
PROVISOS IN MISSOURI RIVER PROJECT
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, during the
debate several references have been made
to the provisos that appear in the para¬
graph on pages 12 and 13 that deal with
the Missouri River Basin project. Sev¬
eral have referred to the proviso at line
20, which reads:
Provided, That nothing in this act shall
be construed as creating below Sioux City
any demand upon the water resources of the
Missouri River Basin above Sioux City in
excess of that now authorized by existing law.
And I desire to direct attention to the
additional proviso that follows in line 24,
which reads:
And -provided further, That portions of the
storage authorized for the main stem of the
river shall be placed on tributaries if the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers
find such action advisable for silt control
and in order to make more water readily
available for agricultural and industrial use
without impairment of flood control below
Sioux City and without increasing the au¬
thorized limit of cost.
In view of the importance which those
provisos will have in the prosecution of
.this project, it may be well to give the
history of their incorporation in the bill.
They were proposed by me in a letter to
the chairman of the Committee on Flood
Control, during the executive sessions of
that committee when they were working
on the draft of the bill following the
public hearings, in February.
The amendments were proposed in the
following letter:
Congress op the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C., March 18, 1944.
The Honorable Will W. Whittington,
Chairman, Committee on Flood Control,
House of Representatives.
My Dear Mr. Whittington: Reflection
upon the various points of view and sug¬
gestions made with reference to the report
of the Army engineers proposing a system
of flood control on the Missouri River leads
me to submit a couple of amendments
which might be useful in the nature of pro¬
visos.
The first is designed to place in the legis¬
lation, where it will be plainly apparent to
all who read the law, the flexibility of the
Army engineers’ proposals, stressed in the
letter of the Chief of Engineers. It would
read:
"Provided, That whenever it shall appear
that flood and silt control above Sioux City
can be Increased thereby or more water be
made more readily available for agricultural
and Industrial use without impairment of
flood control below Sioux City and without
increasing the authorized limit of cost, the
Chief of Engineers shall place on tributaries,
at sites to be selected after consultation with
other Federal agencies concerned, portions
of the storage proposed in the division
engineer’s plan for the main stem.”
Such an amendment, or addition to the
customary reference to the appropriate
House document, would simply emphasize
the flexibility and express the thought of
Congress that where the benefits from the
project could be increased by a certain
modification, it should be done.
’The other amendment is designed to allay
any fears that any part of the engineers’
proposals would injure water rights above
Sioux City. It is the language accepted by
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors for
placing their bill in connection with the
Missouri River channel project. It reads:
"Provided further. That nothing in this
act shall be construed as creating below
Sioux City any demand upon the water re¬
sources of the Missouri River Basin above'
Sioux City in excess of those now authorized
by existing law.”
This does not go as far as the amendment
sought by many western Members in set¬
ting forth a priority of use, but it does
effectively guard against any loss of rights
now existing.
Your usual thoughtful and valued consid¬
eration will be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Francis Case,
Representative in Congress,
Second South Dakota District.
I discussed the proposals briefly with
the chairman of the committee, as he will
recall, and left the letter with him. Sub¬
sequently I discussed them with the gen¬
tleman from Nebraska [Mr. Curtis!, a
member of the committee. A day or two
later I was informally advised by both of
them that the suggestions had been favor¬
ably received by the committee and prob¬
ably would be incorporated in the bill.
Naturally, then, I was pleased when the
bill was introduced on the 27th of March,
1944, to see them incorporated in the
language of the provisos previously cited.
This word on their origin is given for
whatever value it may have in the opera¬
tion of the statute when the bill becomes
law.
My concern on these points, particular¬
ly on the desirability of recognizing stor¬
age on the tributaries as valuable in any
plan of flood control for the Missouri
River Basin had been previously ex¬
pressed to the Chief of Engineers by
letter, November 22, 1944, and in a series
of conferences with members of his staff.
In the letter and in the conferences
I pointed out storage possibilities on sev¬
eral of the tributaries in North Da¬
kota and South Dakota particularly on
such rivers as the Little Missouri,
Knife, Cannonball, Heart, Grand, Mor¬
eau, Cheyenne, White, and others. I also
called attention to problems that would
be created by the flooding of Indian lands
at several points along the main stem of
the river.
I was particularly concerned that pro¬
vision be made for later coordination with
whatever recommendations might come
from the Bureau of Reclamation. Ac¬
cordingly, I ventured to suggest that the
letter of recommendations by the Chief
of Engineers carry appropriate language
to make clear that the suggested main-
stem reservoirs might be modified as to
site and size to permit coordination with
recommendations by other agencies and
to meet conditions that might develop
as the work progressed, that it authorize
placing storage on tributaries, and that
it also establish authority to make com¬
plete reimbursement by payment to in¬
dividual Indians and Indian tribes for
any lands flooded and property injured or
by the location and construction or re¬
location and reconstruction of works and
facilities.
The following reply was received:
War Department,
Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, November 26, 1943.
Hon. Francis Case,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Case: Reference is made to
your letter of November 22, 1943, in whicli
you present several suggestions for possible
development of the proposed projects on the
main stem of the Missouri River and its
tributaries with a view to obtaining the
maximum benefits from the expenditure of
Federal funds in the development of the Mis¬
souri River Basin for flood control and allied
water uses. Your letter also contains a sug¬
gestion that the report of the Chief of En¬
gineers on the Missouri River investigation
include a recommendation for appropriate
authority pertaining to the acquisition of
Indian lands needed for the proposed res¬
ervoirs and the reimbursement for or the
relocation of the interests of the Indians.
May I thank you for these helpful sug¬
gestions, and also for the constructive com¬
ments which you have made in your several
recent conferences with the Department's
representatives. I may assure you that your
views as expressed in your letter of Novem¬
ber 22 will be fully considered in the prepa¬
ration of the report of the Chief of Engineers,
Very truly yours,
Thomas M. Robins,
Major General, Acting Chief of Engineers.
The Chief of Engineers did give con¬
sideration to the suggestions as Js evi¬
denced by the language in paragraphs 10
to 14, inclusive, in his letter of recommen¬
dations that appears in House Document
No. 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, which by reference in the bill be¬
fore us, becomes the law when the bill is
approved.
For convenient reference, the para¬
graphs mentioned are inserted at this
point :
10. The amount of storage In the main-
stem reservoirs and the location and size of
these reservoirs is of vital importance to the
ultimate development of the entire basin.
I am convinced in the light of all information
now available that the plan of the division
engineer and the Board provides a flexible
basis for securing that storage and obtain¬
ing the full multiple-purpose use of the
waters of the Missouri Valley. ’The plan con¬
templates further expansion with a view to
solving the flood and other problems in the
upper tributary basins. Many of these solu¬
tions will doubtless be accomplished through
the construction, by appropriate agencies, of
additional multiple-purpose reservoirs on
those tributaries and headwater streams.
11. ’The Department recognizes water-
flow retardation, soil-erosion prevention,
and production of hydroelectric power as im¬
portant parts of the Missouri Basin program.
’The generation of power, in multiple-purpose
projects now authorized for flood control and
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
in those proposed in the expanded plan of de¬
velopment, is a definite part of the recom¬
mended program. Plans for the production,
transmission, and sale of hydroelectric power
should be worked out with the cooperation of
the Federal Power Commission. Installation
of power facilities so as to meet the eco¬
nomic needs of the Missouri Basin should
be approved from time to time by the Secre¬
tary of War upon recommendations by the
Federal Power Commission and the Chief of
Engineers.
12. The proposed reservoirs will inundate
Indian lands at several points. The esti¬
mates submitted on the over-all cost of the
projects include funds to cover the cost of
taking such lands and buildings, including
relocation of burial grounds. It is to be
- understood, therefore, that approval of this
plan includes authority for the Indians
through their tribal councils, with the ap¬
proval of the Secretary of the Interior, to
convey and relinquish such property to the
United States, and authority for the Secre¬
tary of War to enter into appropriate agree¬
ments with the Secretary of the Interior and
the Indian tribes concerned for the payment
of the fair value of the property taken or for
the contribution of a sum approximating such
value toward locating or constructing or to¬
ward relocating or reconstructing buildings,
works, facilities, or water projects in the vi¬
cinity of the Missouri River or its tributaries.
13. In summary, I believe that the ex¬
panded plan of development for the Mis¬
souri River Basin as recommended by the
division engineer and the Board, establishes
a broad framework for comprehensive basin¬
wide improvements that will derive the max¬
imum benefits from the full multiple-pur¬
pose use of the water resources of that basin.
That plan is flexible in that it proposes
sufficient latitude to permit such modifica¬
tions thereof and changes therein as may
be found advisable, and it should be aug¬
mented by appropriate work of other agen¬
cies duly constituted by law to perform
such work. Thus there are no problems of
water use that cannot be satisfactorily solved
with the full cooperation of all water-use
agencies as the over-all plan of improve¬
ment is placed under construction.
14. This comprehensive plan should be ap¬
proved now and at least the first phase of
development authorized to be prosecuted
in the same manner as that prescribed by
existing law for similar comprehensive plans
for large river basins. Approval at this time
will permit details to be worked out through
coordinatlbn and cooperation with all other
agencies concerned and will enable working
plans to be prepared so that construction
can be initiated expeditiously and prosecuted
with efficiency and dispatch throughout the
post-war period.
This account of the origin of the pro¬
visos that appear in the paragraph in the
bill is given, Mr. Chairman, in order to
establish the legislative intent of them
and to buttress and give force to the pos¬
sibilities for progressive coordination
with the programs of other Federal
agencies in the Missouri River Basin, in¬
cluding the construction of reservoirs on
tributaries as well as the main stem of
the river.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in the Record just prior to the
vote on the Lemke amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARLSON of Kansas. Mr. Chair¬
man, I ask unanimous consent to extend
my remarks in the Record at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARLSON of Kansas. Mr. Chair¬
man, before I discuss the proposal under
consideration for the Missouri River
watershed I want to pay my respects to
the committee and its distinguished
chairman. This I can do with propriety
and actual knowledge as it was my privi¬
lege to serve as a member of the Flood
Control Committee in the Seventy-fourth
and Seventy-fifth Congresses. First, I
wish to state that the Congress and the
Nation are extremely fortunate in hav¬
ing the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Whittington] as chairman. My per¬
sonal opinion is that no individual in or
out of Congress is so familiar with and
sympathetic to the disastrous and over¬
whelming problems caused by water run¬
off. This great committee, under his
leadership, has formulated a plan for a
comprehensive control of the water run¬
off in every section of the Nation. Bene¬
fits will continue to accrue from this pro¬
gram for generations to come.
It is not my intention to enter into a
discussion of the very excellent report
submitted as a comprehensive plan for
development of the Missouri River Basin.
I do wish to state that it is with great
satisfaction that I have read the report
and the letters from the Chief of En¬
gineers, the Commissioners of Irrigation,
the Federal Power Commission, and the
Department of Agriculture.
The Missouri River Basin is the only
large watershed in the Nation on which
Congress has not authorized a compre¬
hensive plan for flood control, naviga¬
tion, irrigation, and an expanded domes¬
tic use of the water run-off. The future
prosperity of this large section of the
Nation will be largely determined by the
use of this great natural resource.
The report submitted by the Chief of
Engineers recommends a program of im¬
pounding the water run-off in vast sec¬
tions of this area through multiple-type
reservoirs. These reservoirs would have
the beneficial effect of protecting areas
downstream from floods, store water for
local irrigation, furnish electric power in
some areas, be of great benefit to the
wildlife of the section, and furnish rec¬
reational areas that are badly needed.
The multiple-purpose reservoir develop¬
ments would accrue benefits to the rural
communities in this section which is in
the arid and semiarid region.
During the testimony before the com¬
mittee on the entire watershed by Col.
Miles A. Reber it was brought out that
the entire program was flexible and the
final construction of it would be through
a coordinated policy approved by the
Federal, State, and local areas. Per¬
sonally, I am interested in the program as
proposed for the Kansas River and its
tributaries. The report mentions that
the Kanopolis Reservoir will be com¬
pleted as soon as material and labor can
be released from war production. The
Harlan Reservoir has congressional au¬
thorization. Plans for its construction
have been completed and further author¬
ization for funds are included in this
proposal. This means that this project
4309
would be given a green light at the ear¬
liest opportunity. Smaller reservoirs are
being recommended on the tributary
streams in Kansas and Nebraska. A
project at Kirwin, Kans., has been under
study for several years and the plans are
now receiving final consideration in the
Bureau of Reclamation oflQce at Denver,
and also before the Director of the War
Food Administration. Every effort is be¬
ing made for the economic justification
of it as a project which fits into the De¬
partment’s program for increased food
production. Studies are being made and
reports will soon be available on the
project at Cedar Bluffs on the Smoky
Hill.
All of these projects, plus others that
are being studied on the Kansas River,
will furnish great protection from floods,
furnish water for irrigation, improve the
lural conditions in the areas affected, and
be of general economic benefit to the
Nation.
During the hearings before the Flood
Control Committee the State was for¬
tunate to have as its representatives Hon.
Joe R. Beeler, of Jewell County, who was
the personal representative of Andrew J.
Schoeppel, Governor of the State; George
S. Knapp, State water-resources en¬
gineer; and Dr. E. Porter Ahrens, State
director of the National Reclamation As¬
sociation, who represented the Republi¬
can River at the hearings. These gentle¬
men expressed approval of the plan sub¬
mitted by the Army engineers and ably
presented the views of Kansas.
At the conclusion of the war, thou¬
sands of young men will be returning to
Kansas. These young men have served
with honor and distinction as represent¬
atives of our State on foreign battlefields
and in defense industries. They will
v/ant to return to their home State and
home locality. It will be the duty of the
State and Nation to work out a program
that will furnish employment for them.
The construction program submitted to
this committee by the Chief of Engineers
would, when completed, furnish great
and lasting projects to our State and our
Nation. Projects of this type must be
given consideration if we are to avoid
another leaf-raking program. This pro¬
gram is one of vision and promise. To
me it is the beginning of a program that
I have personally visualized for years.
During my service in Congress I have
consistently worked and voted for a com¬
prehensive reservoir-control program for
the water run-off in our section of the
Nation. Those of us who are familiar
with the ravages of floods and droughts
could do no less than use our every means
for early approval of the proposed plan.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that the re¬
maining sections of the bill be consid¬
ered as read and printed in the Record
at this point, and that amendments to
any section of tins part of the bill be in
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Sec. 8. The Secretary of War is hereby au¬
thorized and directed to cause preliminary
examinations and surveys for flood control
4310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
and allied purposes, Including channel and
major drainage improvements, to be made
under the direction of the Chief of Engineers,
in drainage areas of the United States and
its Territorial possessions, which include the
following-named localities, and the Secretary
of Agriculture is authorized and directed to
cause preliminary examinations and surveys
for run-off and waterflow retardation and
soil-erosion prevention on such drainage
areas; the cost thereof to be paid from appro¬
priations heretofore or hereafter made for
such purposes: Provided, That after the reg¬
ular or formal reports made on any examina¬
tion, survey, project, or work under way or
proposed are submitted to Congress, no sup¬
plemental or additional report or estimate
shall be made unless authorized by law except
that the Secretary of War may cause a review
of any examination or survey to be made
and a report thereon submitted to the Con¬
gress if such review is required by the na¬
tional defense or by changed physical or
economic conditions: And provided further,
That the Government shall not be deemed to
have entered upon any project for the im¬
provement of any waterway or harbor men¬
tioned in this act until the project for the
proposed work shall have been adopted by
law;
Chipola River, Ala. and Fla.; Wacasassa
River and its tributaries, Fla., and of adjacent
areas in Gilchrist and Levy Counties, Fla.;
Oklawaha River and its tributaries, Fla., and
of adjacent areas in Alachua and Marion
Counties, Fla.; Scajaquada- Creek and its trlb-
utai-ies, N. Y.; Buffalo River, Minn.; Wild
Rice River, Minn.; Marsh River, Minn.; Sand
Hill River, Minn.; Red Lake River, Minn.;
Roseau River, Minn.; Snake River, Minn.;
Middle River, Minn.; Tamarac River, Minn.;
Two Rivers, Minn.; Warroad River and Bull
Dog Creek, Minn.; Mississippi River and its
tributaries, in the County of Aitkin, Minn.;
Apple River, Joe Daviess County, Ill.; Mau¬
mee River, Ind. and Ohio; Indian Creek, Ind.
Osage River, Mo. and Kans.
San Rafael Creek and its tributaries, Cali¬
fornia.
Bayamon and Hondo Rivers and their
tributaries, municipality of Bayamon, P. R.
Sec. 9. That the sum of $810,000,000 is here¬
by authorized to be appropriated for carrying
out the Improvements herein, the sum of
$10,000,000 additional is authorized to be ap¬
propriated and expended in equal amounts
by the Departments of War and Agriculture
for carrying out any examination or survey
provided for in this act and any other acts of
Congress, to be prosecuted by said Depart¬
ments. The sum of $1,500,000 additional is
authorized to be appropriated and expended
by the Federal Power Commission for carry¬
ing out any examinations and surveys pro¬
vided for in this act or any other acts of
Congress, to be prosecuted by the said Fed¬
eral Power Commission.
Sec. 10. That the following works of im¬
provement for run-off and water flow retarda¬
tion, and soil-erosion prevention, are hereby
adopted and authorized in the Interest of the
national security and with a view toward an
adequate reservoir of useful and worthy pub¬
lic works for the post-war construction pro¬
gram to be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture, under the direction of the Secre¬
tary of Agriculture, in accordance with the
plans of the respective reports hereinafter
designated and subject to the conditions set
forth therein; Provided, That the necessary
plans and preliminary work may be prose¬
cuted during the war with funds from ap¬
propriations heretofore or hereafter made
for such works so as to be ready for rapid
Inauguration of post-war construction: Pro¬
vided further. That when the existing critical
situation with respect to materials, equip¬
ment, and manpower, no longer exists and
in any event not later than immediately fol¬
lowing the cessation of hostilities in the pres¬
ent war, the projects herein authorized shall
be initiated as expeditiously as may be con¬
sistent with budgetary requirements and
shall be prosecuted vigorously during the
period of post-war reconversion.
LOS ANGELES RIVER BASIN
The program on the Los Angeles River
watershed is hereby approved substantially
in accordance with the recommendation of
the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document No. 426, Seventy-seventh Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $8,380,000.
TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEX.
The program on the Trinity River water- ,
shed is hereby approved substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendation of the
Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
No. 708, Seventy-seventh Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost to the United
States of $32,000,000.
LITTLE TALLAHATCHIE RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Little Tallahatchie
River watershed is hereby approved substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture
in House Document No. 892, Seventy-seventh
Congi-ess, second session, at an estimated cost
to the United States of $4,221,000.
COOSA RIVER WATERSHED (ABOVE ROME, GA.)
The program on the Coosa River watershed
above Rome, Ga., is hereby approved sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture
in House Document No. 236, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
to the United States of $1,233,000.
LITTLE SIOUX RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Little Sioux River 1
watershed is hereby approved substantially ,
in accordance with the recommendation of
the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document No. 268, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
to the United States of $4,280,000.
POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Potomac River water-;
shed is hereby approved substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendation of the
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document No. 269, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $859,000.
COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED (TEXAS)
The program on those portions of the Colo¬
rado River watershed included in the water¬
sheds of Pecan Bayou, San Saba River, Brady
Creek, and the area tributary to the main
stream of the Colorado River below its con¬
fluence with the Concho River and above the
mouth of Pecan Bayou, is hereby approved
substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agri¬
culture in House Document No. 270, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost to the United States of $2,693,000.
OUACHITA RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Ouachita River water¬
shed is hereby approved substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendation of the
Under Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document No. 275, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $11,243,000.
Sec. 11. That the balance remaining from
the authorization of $10,000,000 provided in
section 7 of the Flood Control Act approved
June 28, 1938, for the 5-year period ending
June 30, 1944, to correlate the program for
the Improvement of watersheds by the De¬
partment of Agriculture for measures of run¬
off and water flow retardation and oil -erosion
prevention on the watersheds with the pro¬
gram for the Improvement of rivers and other
waterways by the Department of War is here¬
by reauthorized to be expended during the
post-war period by the Department of Agri¬
culture for the prosecution of the work au¬
thorized in section 10 of this act: Provided,
That not more than 20 percent of the au¬
thorization made available herein shall be
expended on any one project.
Sec. 12. That section 7 of the act of June
28, 1938, (Public, No. 761, 75th Cong.), is
hereby amended by adding at the end of
the first sentence thereof the following:
“The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
authorized in his discretion to undertake
such emergency measures for run-off re¬
tardation and soil-erosion prevention as may
be needed to safeguard lives and property
from floods and the products of erosion on
any watershed whenever fire or any other nat¬
ural element or force has caused a sudden im¬
pairment of that watershed: Provided, That
not to exceed $100,000 out of any funds here¬
tofore or hereafter appropriated for the pros¬
ecution by the Secretary of Agriculture of
works of improvement or measures for run¬
off and water flow retardation and soil-
erosion prevention on watersheds may be
expended during any one fiscal year for such
emergency measures.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whittington;
On page 20, line 18, after the word “num¬
bered” insert “513.”
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a further amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whittington:
Page 25, line 7, after the period. Insert
“Choctawhatchee River, Fla.”
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I offer a further amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Whittington:
Page 26. following line 1, insert “Deep Red
Run in Tillman County, Okla.; Little Elk
Creek. Salt Fork, Elm Creek, Saddle Moun¬
tain, Turkey Creek, Okla.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I am offering this amendment on behalf
of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
WicKERSHAMl. While I have not had
an opportunity to confer with the Corps
of Engineers, my information is that
some of those streams have not been
surveyed, and if the others have been,
it will not be objectionable, so I see no
objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Mississippi.
There was no objection.
Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
(Ml'. HAGEN asked and was given per¬
mission to revise and extend his remarks
in the Record.)
Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, all of us
here, I am sure, are interested in this
measure because of the ultimate bene¬
fits to the Nation as a whole. The people
of northwestern Minnesota are particu¬
larly interested in this bill, H. R. 4485,
because its passage will authorize a
much-needed and meritorious project in
the congressional district I represent. I
refer to the flood-control project known
as Red Lake River, including Clearwater
River of Minnesota.
We also are particularly interested in
this bill because it includes authoriza¬
tions for preliminary examinations and
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
surveys for flood control and allied pur¬
poses of 12 other rivers and creeks in
northwestern Minnesota. They are Buf¬
falo River, Wild Rice River^ Marsh River,
Red Lake River, Roseau River, Sand Hill
River, Snake River, Middle River, Tam¬
arac River, Two Rivers, Warroad River,
and Bull Dog Creek.
The Red Lake-Clearwater project will
cost the Federal Government $902,940.
It has been recommended by the Chief of
Engineers of the War Department as a
worthy undertaking. An additional cost
of $86,000 will be borne by local agencies.
Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAGEN. I yield to my colleague
from Minnesota.
Mr. JUDD. I should like to take this
opportunity to inform the House that
not only is the gentleman speaking for
himself and the district he has the honor
to represent, but all of us from the Min¬
nesota districts. We have examined
this thing carefully and are thoroughly
in favor of it. The Red Lake and Clear¬
water Rivers drain one of the richest
basins in the world for raising grains
and seed crops and a great variety of
products which are greatly needed now.
This is a very important project which
can be^nished in a relatively short time
so that this land can be brought into
production. Its benefits can be made
available even before the war is over.
So I compliment the gentleman on
bringing this matter to the attention of
the House.
Mr. HAGEN. I thank my colleague
from Minnesota for his comments and
cordial remarks.
The Secretary of War recommends
that this project be started after the war.
However, substantial facts have been
presented by the Minnesota Department
of Conservation, as well as other groups
and individuals and myself, showing that
this particular project should be under¬
taken now as an aid in increasing food
production for the war effort.
On the occasion of one of my appear¬
ances before the House Committee on
Flood Control, I discussed the immediate
need for the completion of this flood-
control project. Just prior to that time
Col. George R. Goethals, Chief, Civil
Works Division, office of the Chief of
Engineers, War Department, also testi¬
fied that the results of the project would
be highly beneficial.
The Red Lake and Clearwater Rivers
periodically overflow their banks and
flood some of the most productive farm
land in America. The adjacent territory
is a well settled farming area of hard¬
working farmers operating medium-sized
farms. Various grains, hay, and other
forage crops are grown. Dairying, live¬
stock, and poultry raising are also carried
on to an extensive degree.
These floods not only destroy crops
but create such personal hardishps for
the farmers and families in that area
that during recent wet years some of
them have had to move elsewhere.
According to the report of the United
States Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
farmers and taxpayers in the flood area
have suffered a loss of m.ore than $3,384,-
000 during the years 1919 to 1939. Some
of the more recent years have been the
worst flood periods.
Record crops have been raised during
average years, and some of the drought-
stricken sections have had to depend
upon their forage and gi-ain crops for
livestock feed from the Red Lake-Clear¬
water area.
Completion of this project now will
greatly increase food production for the
war effort with a minimum of cost to the
Government.
My predecessor in Congress, Repre¬
sentative R. T. Buckler, and I, as his
secretary for 8 years, have been actively
interested in this project for a long time,
and we have received wonderful coopera¬
tion from many individauls, committees,
and officials in an effort to bring efforts
of more than 30 years to a successful
culmination.
The passage of this omnibus flood-
control bill by the House of Representa¬
tives, with the inclusion of the Red
Lake-Clearwater River project, marks
the furtherest step forward in the long
history of this excellent proposal.
In order that my colleagues in the
House may be more familiar with this
particular project I desire to make a few
pertinent remarks concerning it.
Red Lake River, the principal tribu¬
tary of the Red River of the North, has
its source at the outlet of lower Red Lake
in the northwestern part of Minnesota,
flows generally westward through a
meandering course for 196 miles, and
empties into the Red River of the North
at East Grand Forks, Minn. The drain¬
age area contains 5,711 square miles, of
which about 500 square miles are water
surface. The principal tributary is
Clearwater River, which enters from the
south about 90 miles above the mouth
of Red Lake River.
The Chief of Engineers has investi¬
gated the flood problem on the Red Lake
River and its tributaries pursuant to the
authority contained in the Flood Con¬
trol Act approved June 28, 1938, and has
submitted a report to Congress in which
he recommends adoption of a Federal
project for the regulation of Red Lake
for flood control by the installation of
three hand-operated Tainter gates and
other appurtenant works and for the
rectification, clearing, and enlarging of
the channels of Red Lake River and
Clearwater River, Minn., at an estimated
cost to the United States of $902,940.
The Flood Control Committee believes
that the improvements outlined in the
report of the Chief of Engineers would
provide a reasonably satisfactory solu¬
tion of the water supply problems in the
Red Lake River Basin and the control
of floods resulting from direct overflow
from streams within the Red Lake River
Basin and it has recommended the au¬
thorization of the work proposed by the
Chief of Engineers.
It now appears that the project will
at last be approved by Congress. I sin¬
cerely hope that this body will see fit at
a later date to appropriate the necessary
funds to start work on the project during
1944-45.
Over a long period of time, many pub¬
lic officials, civic-minded citizens, town¬
4311
ship officials, and farmers have cooper¬
ated and expended unselfish efforts to
advance this most worthy plan. This au¬
thorization and approval by the House
today, and the expected passage by the
Senate, gives renewed hope to hundreds
of farmers and their families in the large
area which will be most benefited. I am
happy to have had a part in the work of
advancing this plan to its present stage
of development.
As the Representative in Congress from
the Ninth District of Minnesota, I urge
and ask the continued cooperation of my
constituents and my colleagues here in
the House in the next steps forward to
ultimate completion of the project.
Now our special efforts must be directed
toward the approval of the plan by the
Department of Agriculture and the War
Department as an emergency wartime
effort to increase the food supply.
If the farmers of this area definitely
know that their crops will not be de¬
stroyed by floods, they will plant and
produce a large amount of food and crop
products. If we are not able to get the
project started as an emergency war¬
time job, we will ask for funds at the
appropriate time to get the project under
way immediately after the close of the
war.
The fine public spirit of citizens, towns¬
men, and farmers alike assures me of
their continued interest and cooperation
in the advancement of this long-pending
Red Lake-Clearwater River project.
The victory and the undertaking of
this great flood-relief job is in sight. I
believe my long experience with it will
be helpful. I will continue to do every¬
thing within the power and influence of
my office as a Member of Congress and
to the best of my ability to see it through
to completion.
[Mr. MURPHY addressed the Com¬
mittee. His remarks will appear here¬
after in the Appendix.]
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin Arthijr
Hall: On page 25, between lines 8 and 9
Insert the following: “Susquehanna River, In
the vicinity of Endicott, Johnson City, and
Vestal, N. Y."
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I see no objection to the amendment.
The gentleman has adopted the recom¬
mendation we made to him earlier in the
afternoon.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I thank
the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as, follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Case: On page
26, after line 2, insert “Grand River, S. Dak,,
Moreau River, S. Dak.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I am unable to state whether or not an
examination and survey of those two
streams has been ordered. I am agree¬
able to this amendment being included
No. 82 - 8
4312
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
May 9
if it is agreeable to the other members
of the committee. If we find an exami¬
nation and sm’vey has been ordered, it
can be eliminated in the Senate or in
conference.
Mr. CASE. That is satisfactory.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Dakota.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the
chairman of the committee with regard
to the Marais des Cygnes River in Kan¬
sas? On page 26, line 1 of the bill, ref¬
erence is made to the Osage River, Mis¬
souri and Kansas. As a matter of fact
and a matter of history, the Osage River
starts in Missouri, but the upper part of
the Osage was known throughout all our
geographies until the last 3 or 4 years as
the Marais des Cygnes. May I ask the
chairman whether this reference to the
“Osage River, Missouri and Kansas,” in¬
cludes the Marais des Cygnes River in
Kansas?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. If I may an¬
swer the question of the gentleman, and
I think the House is justified in relying
upon his statement that that river is
also known by another name, I am sure
that the river, no matter what it is
known as locally, will be reported on
as the Osage River, sometimes called,
as the gentleman has pointed out, the
Marais des Cygnes. I have in mind that
the Arkansas is called Ar-Kansas out
in Kansas, but we get a report on the
same stream whether it is called Ar-
kansaw or Ar-Kansas.
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman,
during the last week the flood waters
have just receded from several towns
along the Marais des Cygnes, and it has
resulted in the second highest flood in
the history of the State. So we feel it
Is quite an Important problem.
I yield back the balance of my time.
T. V. A. IS NOT A yardstick
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.
A few weeks ago this House passed the
annual independent offices appropriation
bill and sent it to the other end of the
Capitol for approval. Amendments that
will have a far-reaching effect on the
future operations of the Tennessee Val¬
ley Authority have been adopted by the
Senate, and the bill is now in conference.
In anticipation of the day that I will
be called upon to vote for or against
these T. V. A. amendments, I have re¬
cently read two very interesting books;
one. The Power Industry and the Public
Interest, which is a summary of the re¬
sults of a survey of the relations between
the Government and the electric-power
industry made under the direction of the
trustees of the Twentieth Century Fund.
The other book was T. V. A. — Democracy
on the March, by David E. Lilienthal,
Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority.
The adoption of the T. V. A. amend¬
ments to which I have referred brings
the whole subject of the T. V. A. and its
future before Congress. Regardless of
how we may individually feel as to the
wisdom of setting up the T .V. A., we
must now accept the fact that the peo¬
ple we represent have an investment of
more than $800,000,000 in the Tennessee
Valley Authority. As I see it, our prob¬
lem today is to determine just how we
can make the best possible use of the
T. V. A. property, and just what we
should do to bring about the greatest
possible return on this huge investment.
I have my own personal views regard¬
ing the wisdom of permitting the Federal
Government to embark on the T. V. A.
program. Frankly, I cannot help but
wonder if we might not have been better
off, as a nation, if, instead of spending
$800,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money in
the development of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, we had permitted private
capital to finance these projects. There
are millions of dollars of private capital
lying'idle in banks scattered all over the
country. Money that could have been
invested in expanding the private power
industry, not only in the Tennessee Val¬
ley area but throughout the Nation.
However, as far as T. V. A. is concerned,
that question has been settled.
Before the House passes on the T. V. A.
amendments to the independent offices
appropriation bill, there is one ghost
that I would like to see laid once and for
all. I would like to scotch the yardstick
idea that has confused so many people
whenever T. V. A. was discussed. If the
taxpayers of this Nation are going to
endorse and support the program of
T. V. A., they have a right to know just
what the supporters of T. V. A. have in
mind. Was T. V. A. set up to provide
a yardstick for the electric-power indus¬
try or was it created as part of a great
social experiment of developing the
national resources of the Tennessee
Valley?
Unfortunately, the Federal Power
Commission with the sanction of Con¬
gress has spent thousands of dollars
printing volumes, comparing T. V. A.
electrical rates with the rates charged
by private utility companies in every
city, town, village, and hamlet through¬
out the United States. Our distin¬
guished colleague the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Rankin! has filled page
after page of the Congressional Record
with similar comparisons.
The complaint of many supporters of
private industry is not with the great
social experiment of developing all the
national resources of the valley and rais¬
ing the standard of living. Nor is its re¬
sentment directed at the notable prac¬
tical demonstration which the T. V. A.
and the Canadian Hydro have made in
proving the large per capita use which
the public will make of electricity in
the home, provided rates are sufficiently
low. It is directed principally against
the use of the T. V. A. rate schedules and
average per kilowatt-hour prices paid in
the territory as a yardstick by which the
public may judge the extent of the rob¬
bery perpetrated upon them by private
industry.
May I, at this time, quote from state¬
ments made by men who have supported
T. V. A. from its very beginning?
The views of Prof. Martin G. Glaeser,
who helped determine the T. V. A. rate
schedules in 1933, with respect to the
validity of the yardstick have been stated
as follows:
Long ago I had concluded that the yard¬
stick idea is a will-o’-the-wisp which lends
itself admirably to propaganda purposes, but
the pursuit of which could end only in a
bog of discussion, of claim and counter¬
claim.
Also, on the question of yardstick, I
quote from the Twentieth Century Fund
report on The Power Industry and the
Public Interest:
The national significance of the T. V. A.
experiment in relation to the regulation of
power rates by State commissions has been
dramatized by the invidious term, “yard¬
stick.”
Although, in its early years, the T. V. A.
wholesale rate was featured as a yardstick by
the T. V. A. and its supporters, that claim
has now been abandoned. Conditions of
generation differ so widely between a multi¬
ple-purpose project and a private plant that
equality, or even comparability, of costs can¬
not be expected. The cost of generation by
the T. V. A., no matter what method of
allocation is used, cannot be a measure of
reasonable costs for any other plant, whether
steam or hydroelectric.
Nor has the retail yardstick any more
scientific validity. If the wholesaler does
not operate on a strictly commercial basis,
development costs cannot be readily allo¬
cated to the retail distributor. Further¬
more, the over-all wholesale-retail costs are
no more comparable to those of other utili¬
ties than is the wholesale rate itself. Inso¬
far as costs have been shifted or absorbed in
expenditures for other purposes, the ability of
T. V. A. distributors to show a profit is no
proof that their resale rates are reasonable.
Still on the subject of yardsticks, I turn
to the Chairman of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, Mr. David E. Lilienthal, who,
in his recent book, states:
The particular rates embodied in the
T. V. A. schedule were not to be an absolute
standard of precisely what should be charged
for electricity anywhere and everywhere in
the country, with the implication that any
company charging more than the T. V. A.
rate was therefore proved an extortionist.
The country is far too diverse, conditions are
far too varied, for any such oversimplifica¬
tion.
I am sure that my distinguished col¬
league [Mr. Rankin] will accept the tes¬
timony of the three outstanding authori¬
ties I have quoted, and that we will hear
no more about the T. V. A. yardstick.
David E. Lilienthal is one of the great¬
est living authorities on T. V. A. For one
I accept his statement that T. V. A. rates
should not be used as a yardstick. I have
heard the T. V. A. yardstick called a 20-
inch yardstick or a rubber yardstick. It
is gratifying to learn -from such eminent
authority that there is no yardstick as
far as the T. V. A. is concerned.
I intend to oppose any T. V. A. amend¬
ments that might “hamstring” those who
are charged with protecting the taxpay¬
ers’ investment. That statement does
not mean that I think the T. V. A. act,
in its present form, is perfect. It is my
belief that inasmuch as the T. V. A. must
continue to operate in competition with
private utilities, it should pay all taxes
at the same rate paid by competing pri¬
vate companies. If the consumer of
electricity bought from a privately
financed power and electric-light com-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
pany is to pay a sales tax on the amount
of his light bill, then certainly those who
buy electricity from a T. V. A. Govern¬
ment-financed company should pay a
tax at the same rate. In the near future
I hope to prepare some figures compar¬
ing the taxes paid by T. V. A. and its
consumers, with the taxes paid by pri¬
vate electric-light companies and tlieir
consumers.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MILLER
of Connecticut received permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brehm: On
page 25. line 7, after the period In line 7,
strike out the period and Insert a comma
and the words “Hocking River in Hocking
County, Ohio.”
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I would say in deference to the gentle¬
man from Ohio, I am sure a report on
the Hocking River was authorized. For
that reason I suggest the gentleman
withdraw his amendment, and if you find
or I find it is not authorized, we can ask
the Senate to insert it.
Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, some 3
or 4 weeks ago I talked with the Army
engineers’ office here in Washington re¬
garding this section of the Hocking
River at Rockbridge, Ohio, and its de¬
structive effects upon the farms adja¬
cent thereto, and was informed that they
would be pleased to have their engineer
make a survey of this area. My amend¬
ment authorizes that this action be
taken.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
in view of that statement, I have no ob¬
jection to this stream being included.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Brehm].
The amendment was agreed to.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. NOR-
RELL received permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
[Mr. NORRELL addressed the Com¬
mittee. His remarks will appear here¬
after in the Appendix. ]
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I spoke of a
project that might be listed on page 25
of this bill and the Chair said if I would
name the stream it might be included.
I am not quite sure whether it has al¬
ready been included in a survey. I refer
to the Hassayampa River in Arizona. It
may have been included in a general
survey of the Gila River and its tribu¬
taries which is one of those extensive
surveys begun some years ago and still
-in progress. Acting on the suggestion
the Chairman has made to several other
Members, I would like to take that ques¬
tion up further and see whether a survey
has been made on the Hassayampa.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
if that be the stream which the gentle¬
man mentioned to me yesterday, I took
it up with the OflQce of the Chief of Engi¬
neers and I was advised the report was
in process of being submitted. If you
find that statement is not absolutely cor¬
rect with respect to this stream you just
mentioned, I suggest you ask for an
examination of it to be included in the
Senate bill. But I think that is a cor¬
rect statement.
Mr. MURDOCK. I thank the gentle¬
man for that suggestion. He made a
similar suggestion to the gentleman
from California a moment ago, which I
would like also to act upon. As I said
yesterday, there is a flood-control situa¬
tion badly needing action at Holbrook,
Ariz., on the Little Colorado which has
been looked into and carefully studied
by the Army engineers. They have made
their complete report some time ago and
the only thing left in finishing this re¬
port is that it has not cleared the Bureau
of the Budget, nor the Bureau of Recla¬
mation. However, I happen to know
that the Bureau of Reclamation is favor¬
able to it and would interpose no objec¬
tion. In the same way, then, I should
like to have this referred to the Senate
after clearance is had and later possibly
to the conferees in regard to this same
bill, because the flood hazard at Holbrook
is very, very bad. The Army engineers’
report is complete up to the point indi¬
cated.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
take the remainder of my time on a
matter of general policy covered in this
measure. We have had a good deal said
here today in regard to the implications
of this bill, that it does not affect rec¬
lamations or power production, because
it applies solely to flood control or navi¬
gation. The words of the Chairman to
that affect are reassuring and I am glad
to have them. However, I want to point
out that years ago in order to inject the
Federal Government into the regulation
of some of these rivers and justify the
expenditure of Federal funds, the con¬
stitutional phrase “control of naviga¬
tion’’ by Congress has been greatly ex¬
tended by wide interpretation. I am not
so sm-e but that the Government has
erected some fiood-control and even some
irrigation dams under the guise of af¬
fording navigation. If the Chairman is
referring specifically to actual naviga¬
tion as covered by the terms of this bill,
its effects may be well and good. If,
however, a dam on the river that flows
by my door, the Roosevelt Dam, begun
in 1906 and finished in 1911, which is
also a fiood-control dam, but primarily
for irrigation, if that dam is to be con¬
trolled by an agency other than the
Bureau of Reclamation because it has
some fiood-control possibilities or be¬
cause it has something to do with navi¬
gation actually or impliedly, then, of
course, that is something else yet. I
want to point out to the chairman of
the Flood Control Committee that here
is a danger of centralizing too much
power in the hands of the War Depart¬
ment in the control of om’ western rivers.
At the same time, however, I want to
say that I have great confidence in the
Ai’my engineers. They have done a mag¬
nificent job. I want them to continue,
but I do not want to centralize control
of all of our rivers even in the hands
of the War Department.
4313
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Murdock]
has expired.
[Mr. RANKIN addressed the Commit¬
tee. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Mississippi has expired.
Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact
that this is a bill authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on river
and harbors for flood control and other
purposes. It had been my Intention to
introduce an amendment to provide for
relief from damage caused by floods from
Lake Erie in the Howard Farms area.
Three floods have left over 300 people
homeless. I have talked to the Chair¬
man of the Committee on Flood Control,
however, for whom I have the most pro¬
found respect, and will not offer that
amendment at this time.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. RAMEY. I shall be most happy to
yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WHITTTNGTON. I should like
to say that the gentleman has been most
fair and most cooperative. This project
was not reported by the Chief of Engi¬
neers under any authorization survey.
The gentleman from Ohio on yesterday
spoke with respect to the project. He
called the committee’s attention to the
fact that the senior Senator from Ohio
[Mr. Taft] had introduced a bill and
that a report had been made on that bill
and that there were hearings in the
Senate.
Mr. RAMEY. That is right.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I say to the
gentleman now as I said to him then that
in as much as we have had no recommen¬
dation from the Chief of Engineers and
no report, yet, if there is a favorable re¬
port on the project and it is included in
this bill in the other body I think the
conferees would be authorized to agree
to its being included in the bill. In fact,
I think we might make that agreement
based on the assumption that there is
a favorable report from the Chief of
Engineers.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAMEY. I yield.
Mr. JENKINS. As I understand it,
what the distinguished gentleman from
Mississippi says amounts to this, that if
the gentleman does not press for his
amendment now, if Senator Taft’s
amendment is placed in this bill in the
Senate, the distinguished gentleman from
Mississippi will not interpose any opposi¬
tion to the matter in conference.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
if the gentleman will yield, the gentle¬
man from Mississippi meant exactly what
he said and said exactly what he meant,
that if there was a favorable report on
that bill and if it was included by the
other body in the bill that it would occur
to me — and I said that to the gentleman
previously — that the conferees would be
authorized in agreeing to its remaining
in the bill.
4314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE May 9
Mr. JENKINS. If the gentleman gives
us that assurance I know he will do ex¬
actly that. The point I am trying to
lead to is this : That if that is done there
should be no reason for the conference
committee to come back and say: “We
kept something out that was exactly sim¬
ilar to that.” There wil be nothing like
that to interfere.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; on the con¬
trary I stated to the gentleman and to
other Members similarly situated that if
those projects were recommended the
other body would have the right to include
them in the bill and then they could be
included by the conferees.
Mr. RAMEY. I thank the chairman
of the committee for his consideration
and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the pro forma amend¬
ment.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House
is a very important one to many sections
of the country, especially mine; but right
now, Mr. Chairman, I am more interested
in getting those dikes and levees on the
Missouri River repaired. Every year for
the past several years we have had floods
on the Missouri River which have torn out
the dikes and levees and have flooded
many thousands of acres of rich soil and
farm land. Right now much land can¬
not be put into crops because it is covered
with water. I should like to ask the
chairman of the committee if he is able
to give us a statement as to just when
we can expect this emergency flood-con¬
trol authorization bill to come before the
Congress so we can get some action and
get repaired those dikes that are now out
along the rivers.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Understanding
that the gentleman directs his inquiry
to me, I restate as I have repeatedly
stated that we have requested the Chief
of Engineers to submit recommendations
as to the amounts required for emergency
repairs of existing flood-control works
damaged or destroyed by floods in the
midcontinental area.
Mr. JENSEN. Will the gentleman
from Mississippi indicate about when we
may expect the bill to come before the
House?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would say
this — and without meaning to be pre¬
sumptuous — I am a member of several
committees. I do not know of any com¬
mittee that has been more prompt in
dealing with these emergency matters,
giving them prompt attention and re¬
porting on them than the Committee on
Flood Control. I trust that the policy
that has obtained in the past will obtain
in the future.
Mr. JENSEN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, up to date but little
money has been spent on the Missouri
River as compared with the large rivers
of the Nation and I am happy to support
a bill which will give us some relief in
that very large area of the Missouri River
Basin. As I said before, the floods have
been devastating and have kept many
thousands of acres of the finest land that
lies out of doors out of cultivation. The
loss has been so great to many of those
people along the river that it has been
almost unbearable. So I know I voice
the sentiment of the people of my dis¬
trict when I say now that some relief is
in sight by the passage of this bill, the
folks will be very pleased and happy to
know that the Congress of the United
States has Anally gotten around to doing
something of a permanent nature instead
of just handing out little piecemeals to
the people who live along the Missouri
River.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Iowa has expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Chairman,
I know of no further debate and no fur¬
ther amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. Bulwinkle, Chairman of the Com¬
mittee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consider¬
ation the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing-
the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control,
and for other purposes, pursuant to the
provisions of House Resolution 517, re¬
ported the same back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not the Chair will put
them en gross.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. ANDREWS of New York. Mr.
Speaker, I move to recommit the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op¬
posed to the bill?
Mr. ANDREWS of New York. I am
opposed to the bill in its present form.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman qual¬
ifies.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Andrews of New York moves to recom¬
mit the bill to the Committee on Flood
Control.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that all Mem¬
bers may have 5 legislative days within
which to extend their own remarks on
the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi?
There was no objection.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and ex¬
tend the remarks I made in the Com¬
mittee of the Whole awhile ago and
to include therein some excerpts from
the record of testimony before the Sen¬
ate Commerce Committee.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Rankin]?
There was no objection.
MEMORIAL SERVICES
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Speaker, I of¬
fer a resolution, and ask for its imme¬
diate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution (H. Res.
538) , as follows:
Resolved, That on Wednesday, the 31st
day of May 1944, Immediately after the ap¬
proval of the Journal, the House shall stand
at recess for the purpose of holding the
memorial services as arranged by the Com¬
mittee on Memorials, under the provisions
of clause 40-A of rule XI. The order of
exercises and proceedings of the service shall
be printed in the Congressional Record,
and all Members shall have leave for 60
legislative days to extend their remarks in
the Congressional Record, on the life,
character, and public service of the deceased
Members. At the conclusion of the pro¬
ceedings the Speaker shall call the House
to order and then, as a further mark of
respect to the memories of the deceased,
he shall declare the House adjourned: And
be it further
Resolved, That the necessary expenses
connected with the memorial services herein
authorized shall be paid out of the con¬
tingent fund of the House upon vouchers
signed by the chairman of the Committee
on Memorials and approved by the Com¬
mittee on Accounts.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ari¬
zona [Mr. Murdock] ?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to recon-sider was laid on the
table.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
Mr. D’ALESANDRO. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to extend my
own remarks in the Record and to include
therein an address by Governor O’Conor
at the opening of the Pulaski Highway
in Maryland.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. D’AlesandroI?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. WICKERSHAM and Mr. SHAFER
asked and were given permission to ex¬
tend their own remarks in the Record.)
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Woodruff] may
have permission to extend his own
remarks in the Appendix of the Record.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dondero]?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, I also
ask unanimous consent to extend my own
remarks in the Appendix of the Record
}
" *k
T&th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 10 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Connnerce
AN ACT
Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.
2 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Bepresenta-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That the words ‘‘flood control” as used in section 1 of the
4 Act of June 22, 1936, shall be construed to include channel
5 and major drainage improvements, and that hereafter Federal
Q investigations and improvements of rivers and other water-
7 ways for flood control and allied pm'poses shall be under
8 the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the War De-
9 partment under the direction of the Secretary of War and
10 supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Federal investi-
11 gations of watersheds and measures for run-off and water-
2
1 flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds
2 shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall he prosecuted
3 by the Department of Agriculture under the direction of the
4 Secretary of Agriculture, except as otherwise provided by
5 Act of Congress.
6 Sec. 2. That section 3 of the Act approved June 22,
7 1936 (Public, Numbered 738, Seventy-fourth Congress), as
8 amended by section 2 of the Act approved June 28, 1938
9 (Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress) , shall apply
10 to all works authorized in this Act, except that for any chan-
11 nel improvement or channel rectification project provisions
12 (a), (b),and (c) of section 3 of said Act of June 22, 1936,
10 shall apply thereto, and except as otherwise provided by
11 law: Provided, That the authorization for any flood-control
1^ project herein adopted requiring local cooperation shall expire
five years from the date on which local interests are notified
in writing by the War Department of the requirements of
local cooperation, unless said interests shall within said time
furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that
the required cooperation will he furnished.
Sec. 3. The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision
of the Secretary of War, is authorized to construct, maintain,
and operate park and recreational facilities in reservoir areas
under the control of the War Department, and to permit the
9^
construction, maintenance, and operation of such facihties.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
The Secretary of War is authorized to grant leases of lands,
structures, or facilities in reservoir areas for such periods
and upon such terms as he may deem reasonable: Provided,
That licenses to Federal, State, or local governmental
agencies for the use of areas suitable for pubhc park and
recreational purposes may be granted without monetary
consideration when the Secretary of War determines such
action to be in the public interest. All moneys received for
leases or privileges shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 4. That the Secretary of War is authorized to sell
to States, municipahties, private concerns, or individuals, at
such prices and on such terms as he may deem reasonable,
for domestic and industrial uses surplus water that may be
available at anv reservoir under the control of the War
«/
Department. All moneys received from such sales shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscel¬
laneous receipts.
Sec. 5. Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Secretary
of War to prescribe regulations for the use of storage avail¬
able for flood control or navigation at all reservoirs con¬
structed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the
basis of such purposes, and the operation of any such project
shall be in accordance with such regulations.
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever in the opinion of the Secre-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
'12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers any dam and reservoir
project operated under the direction of the Secretary of
War can be consistently used for reclamation of arid lands,
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to pre¬
scribe regulations under existing reclamation law for the use
of the storage available for such pm’pose, and the operation
of any such project shall be in accordance with such regula¬
tions. Such rates, as the Secretary of the Interior may deem
reasonable, shall be charged for the use of said storage; the
moneys veceived to be deposited into the Treasury to the
credit of miscellaneous receipts: Provided, That this section
shall not apply to any dam or reservoir heretofore constructed
which supplements any existing locally operated irrigation
districts.
Sec. 7. That the following works of improvement for
the benefit of navigation and the control of destructive flood
waters and other purposes are hereby adopted and author¬
ized in the interest of the national security and with a view
toward providing an adequate reservoir of useful and worthy
pubhc works for the post-war construction program, to be
prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the
plans in the respective reports hereinafter designated and
subject to the conditions set forth therein: Provided, That
the necessary plans, specifications, and prefiminary work
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
may be prosecuted during the war, with funds from appro¬
priations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control, so
as to be ready for rapid inauguration of a post-war program
of construction: Provided further, That when the existing
critical situation with respect to materials, equipment, and
manpower no longer exists, and in any event not later than
immediately following the cessation of hostilities in the
present war, the projects herein shall be initiated as expe-
ditiousty and prosecuted as vigorously as may be consistent
with budgetary requirements: And provided further, That
penstocks and other similar facilities adapted to possible
future use in the development of hydroelectric power shall
be installed in any dam herein authorized when approved
by the Secretary of War on the recommendation of the
Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission.
CONNECTICIJT EiVEE BaSIN
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $30,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Connecticut Biver Basin: Provided,
That neither this authorization nor previous authorizations
shall be construed to authorize the construction of a high
dam at the Williams vflle site.
1
2
3
4
5
6
rr
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Thames Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18,' 1941, for the Thames Eiver Basin at an
estimated cost of $7,200,000.
Hohsatonic Biver Basin
The project for the Thomaston Eeservoir on the hfauga-
tuck Eiver, for flood control in the Housatonic Eiver
Basin, Connecticut, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Humhered 338, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
$5,151,000.
Shsqhehanna Eiver Basin
The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936,
to provide for local protection works on the Susquehanna
Eiver at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is hereby modified sub¬
stantially in accordance with the reconunendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Humhered 702,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $2,227,000.
The project for flood protection at Tyrone, Pennsyl¬
vania, on the Little Juniata Eiver, Pennsylvania, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Hum-
7
1 bered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an
2 estimated cost of $1,392,000.
3 The plan for flood control in southern I7ew York and
4 eastern Pennsylvania authorized hy the Act of June 22,
5 1936, as modified hy the Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby
6 further modified to include the South Plymouth and Gene-
7 gantslet Reservoirs on tributaries of the Chenango River
8 substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
9 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 702,
19 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
11 additional cost of $4,755,000.
12 The plan for the Raystown Reservoir on the Raystown
18 Branch of the Juniata River, Pennsylvania, for flood con-
14 trol and other purposes, substantially in accordance with
15 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
16 Document Numbered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec-
17 ond session, is approved, and there is hereby authorized to
18 be appropriated the sum of $2,000,000 for the initiation
19 and partial accomplishment thereof.
20 Mobile Rivee Basin' — Alabama-Coosa Rivee Basin
21 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
22 authorized the completion of the AUatoona Reservoir on the
23 Etowah River, Georgia, approved in the Act of August 18,
24 1941, at an estimated cost of $14,400,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
Lower Mississippi River
The project for flood control and improvement of the
Lower Mississippi River adopted by the Act of May 15,
1928, as amended by subsequent Acts of Congress, is
hereby modified in accordance with the reconunendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 509,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, and, as modified,
is hereby adopted and there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated, in addition to the sums previously authorized,
$200,000,000 for the accomphshment of the purposes set
forth in said document.
The project for flood control on the Boeuf and Tensas
Rivers and Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Num¬
bered 151, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $5,013,000.
The project for flood control on the Big Sunflower, Little
Sunflower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver Rivers and their tribu¬
taries, and on Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal, Bogue Phalia,
Ditchlow Bayou, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou, Mississippi,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 516, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $3,752,000.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The project for flood protection in the backwater area
of the Yazoo River authorized in the Flood Control Act of
August 18, 1941, is hereby amended to authorize the Chief
of Engineers, in his discretion, to include improvements for
the protection of the Satartia area at an estimated additional
cost of $1,061,000 or, in his discretion, to include improve¬
ments for the protection of the Satartia area plus its extension
at an estimated additional cost of $1,952,000.
Red-Ouaciiita Rivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act of
August 18, 1941, for the Little Missouri River in Arkansas,
at an estimated cost of $3,800,000.
Aekansas River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to he appropriated the sum of $35,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Arkansas River Basin.
The projects for local flood protection on the Arkansas
River are hereby modified and authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 447, Seventy-
H. R. 4485 - 2
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated additional
cost of $10,299,400.
The project on tributaries of the Fountaine Que Bouille
Eiver for flood protection at Colorado Springs, Colorado, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 186, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated cost of $500,000.
The project on Purgatoire Eiver for local flood protection
at Trinidad, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 387, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $909,000.
White Eiver Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $45,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the White Eiver Basin.
Upper Mississippi Eiver Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
N
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Upper Mississippi Eiver
Basin.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936,
for local flood protection on the Mississippi Kiver at the
Sainte Genevieve Levee District Numbered 1, Missouri, is
hereby modified substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 727, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $141,000.
The project on the Mississippi Eiver for local flood pro¬
tection at Sabula, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 328, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
$25,000.
The project on the Galena Eiver, for local flood protec¬
tion at Galena, Illinois, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 336, Seventy-seventh
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $418,000,
The project for flood control on the Illinois Eiver is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 692, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $111,500.
The project on Elk Creek and Turkey Eiver for local
flood protection at Elkport, Iowa, is hereby authorized sub-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Humhered 700,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $13,000.
Red Rivee oe the Hoeth Basin
The projects for flood control for Red Lake River, Min¬
nesota, including Clearwater River, Minnesota, are hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Doeument Numbered
345, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $902,940.
Missouei Rivee Basin
The general comprehensive plan for flood control and
other purposes in the Missouri River Basin approved by the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by subsequent Acts, is
hereby expanded to include the plan of improvement for
flood control, irrigation, power development, navigation, and
other purposes, substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 475, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session;
and as expanded is approved; and, in addition to previous
authorizations, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $200,000,000 for the partial accomplishment of
the comprehensive plan as modified and expanded : Provided,
That nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating below
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Sioux City any demand upon the water resources of the
Missouri River Basin above Sioux City in excess of that
now authorized by existing law: And 'provided further, That
portions of the storage authorized for the main stem of the
river shall be placed on tributaries if the Secretary of War
and the Chief of Engineers find such action advisable for silt
control and in order to make more water readily available
for agricultural and industrial use without impairment of
flood control below Sioux City and without increasing the
authorized limit of cost.
The project adopted by the Act of June 22, 1936, to
provide flood protection for the Kansas Citys, Kansas and
Missouri, is hereby modified and extended to provide for
improvement substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 342, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated additional cost for the modified project of
$8,445,000.
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for Cherry Creek and tributaries, Colo¬
rado, at an estimated cost of $7,500,000.
The project on Knife River for local flood control at
Beulah, Korth Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
14
1 neers in House Document J^umbered 252, Seventy-eighth
2 Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $26,100.
3 The project on Knife Eiver for local flood control at
4 Hazen, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
5 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
6 Engineers in House Document Numbered 252, Seventy-
7 eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $6,600.
8 The project on Milk Eiver adopted by the Act of June
9 22, 1936, to provide local flood protection at Harlem, Mon-
10 tana, is hereby modified substantially in accordance with the
11 . recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Docu-
12 ment Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
13 at an estimated cost of $21,100.
14 The project on Milk Eiver for local flood protection at
15 Havre, Montana, is hereby authorized substantially in accord-
16 ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
17 Senate Document Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress,
18 first session, at an estimated cost of $313,100.
19 The project on Boyer Eiver for local flood control on
20 East Eork of Boyer Eiver at Denison, Iowa, is hereby
21 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
22 tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
23 254, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
21 cost of $17,830.
25 The project on Nishnabotna Eiver for local flood control
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
at Hamburg, Iowa, is hereby authorized suhstantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document I^’umbered 253, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $236,000.
The project on Bear Creek for local flood protection at
Morrison, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 356, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $220,000.
OHIO EIVEE BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to he appropriated the sum of $70,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Ohio River Basin, including the
following projects in tributary basins, namely:
The local flood protection works in the Lake Chautauqua
and Chadakoin River area, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 685, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $135,500;
The local flood protection works at Dillonvale and
Adena on Short Creek, Ohio, substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
House Document Numbered 889, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $158,200;
The local flood protection works at Taylorsville on Salt
Diver, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
Numbered 105, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $129,350;
The local flood protection works at Latrobe on Loyal-
hanna Creek, Pennsylvania, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 444, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $112,500;
The Burr Oak Keservoir on the Hocking Kiver, Ohio,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 762,
Seventy-seventh Congress, seconfl^^ge^on, at an estimated
cost of $400,000; ^ ■
The Eowlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat River, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in the report submitted to Congress by
the Secretary of War on November 26, 1942, at an esti¬
mated cost of $29,230,000; and
The improvement in the Youghiogheny River Basin,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in a report submitted to Congress by the
1
o
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
Secretary of War on March 29, 1943, at an estimated cost
of $37,970,000.
That the general comprehensive plan for flood control
and other purposes, approved in the Flood Control Act
of June 28, 1938, for the Ohio River Basin, is hereby
modified to include the construction of flood-control works
for the protection of Bidgway, Johnsonburg, Saint Marys,
and Brockway and vicinity in the State of Pennsylvania.
Geeat Lakes Basin
The project for the Panther Mountain Reservoir on
Moose River, New York, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 405, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
$600,000.
The project for flood control on Chittenango Creek and
tributaries. New York, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 625, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$111,000.
The projects for flood control on Owasco Inlet and Outlet,
MontviUe and Dry Creeks, State Ditch, and Crane Brook,
New York, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance'
H. R. 4485 - 3
18
1 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
2 House Document Numbered 815, Seventy-seventh Congress,
3 second session, at an estimated cost of $64,200.
4 CoLOEADO River Basin (Texas)
5 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
6 authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
I of August 18, 1941, for the North Concho River, Texas, at
8 an estimated cost of $4,800,000.
9 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
10 authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
11 of August 18, 1941, for Pecan Bayou, Texas, at an estimated
12 cost of $1,560,000.
13 Brazos River Basin
II In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
15 authorized the completion of Whitney Reservoir in accord-
10 ance with the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
17 for the Brazos River Basin, at an estimated cost of
18 $15,000,000.
19 Rio Grande Basin
20 The project on Willow Creek for local flood protection
21 at Creede, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
22 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
23 neers in Senate Document Numbered 104, Seventy-eighth
21 Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $68,500.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
San Diego Kiver Basin
The project on the San Diego Eiver for local flood pro¬
tection at San Diego, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 635,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $370,000.
Ventura River Basin
The projects on the Ventura River and tributaries for
local flood protection at Ventura and Ojai, California, are
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 323, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $1,600,000.
Santa Ana River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
the prosecution of the projects approved in the Act of June
22, 1936, as modified by the Act of June 28, 1938, for the
Santa Ana River Basin and for the protection of Orange
County, California, including the projects on Lytle and
Cajon Creeks for local flood protection at San Bernardino
and Colton, California, in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers dated
February 11, 1944. ,
1
2
O
o
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
Los A^tgeles-San Gabeiel Basin and Ballona Ceeek
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $25,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of August 18, 1941, for Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Bivers and Ballona Creek, California.
Saceamento-San Joaquin Bivee Basin
SACEAMENTO EIVEE
The projects for the control of floods and other purposes
on the Sacramento Biver, California, adopted by the Acts
approved March 1, 1917, May 15, 1928, August 26, 1937,
and August 18, 1941, are hereby modified substantially in
accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Enofi-
neers for Bivers and Harbors dated February 7, 1944, vdth
such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secre¬
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers may he advisable,
at an estimated cost of $46,056,000; and in addition to
previous authorizations there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for the prosecution of
the modified projects: Provided, That this modification of
the project shall not be construed to authorize the construc¬
tion of a high dam at the Table Mountain site but shall
authorize only the low-level project to approximately the
elevation of four hundred feet above mean sea level, said low-
level dam to be built on a foundation sufficient for such dam
1
2
3
4
5
C
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
and not on a foundation for future construction of a higher
o
dam.
SAN JOAQUIN EII'JIE
The project for the Isabella Eeservoir on the Kern
Kiver for flood control and other purposes in the San Joaquin
Valley, California, is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in his report dated January 26, 1944, contained in
House Document Numbered 513, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $6,800,000.
The plan for the Terminus and Success Eeservoirs on
the Kaweah and Tide Eivers for flood control and other
purposes in the San Joaquin Valley, California, in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Flood Control Committee Document Numbered 1, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, is approved, and there is
hereby authorized $4,600,000 for initiation and partial
accomphshment of the plan.
The project for flood control and other purposes for the
Kings Eiver and Tulare Lake Basin, California, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the plans con¬
tained in House Document Numbered 630, Seventy-sixth
Congress, third session, with such modifications thereof as in
the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers may be advisable at an estimated cost of $19,700,-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
■15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
22
000: Provided, That the conditions of local cooperation
specified in said document shall not apply : Provided further,
That the Secretary of War shaU make arrangements for pay¬
ment to the United States by the State or other responsible
agency, either in lump sum or annual installments, for con¬
servation storage when used: Provided further. That the
division of costs between flood control, and irrigation and
other water uses shah be determined by the Secretary of War
on the basis of continuing studies by the Bureau of Beclama-
tion, the War Department, and the local organizations.
The plan of Improvement for local flood protection on
various streams in the Merced County Stream Group in the
San Joaquin Valley is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 473, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $1,300,000,
The plan of improvement for flood control and other pur¬
poses on the Lower San Joaquin Biver and tributaries, in¬
cluding Tuolumne and Stanislaus Eivers, in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Elood Con¬
trol Committee Document Numbered 2, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, is approved, and there is hereby au¬
thorized $8,000,000 for initiation and partial accomplish¬
ment of the plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
OoQTJiLLE River Basin
The project for flood protection on the Coquille River,
Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 620, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $143,000.
Nehalem River Basin
The project for flood protection on the Nehalem River,
Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 621, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $23,000.
Willamette River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $20,000^000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Willamette River Basin, with
such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief
of Engineers may be advisable.
Columbia River Basin
The projects on the Snake River for local flood protection
at Heise, Roberts, and Weiser, Idaho, are hereby authorized,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 452,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $743,000.
The projects on the Palouse Eiver and tributaries for
local flood protection at Pullman and Colfax, Washington,
are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment ^^'umbered 888, Seventy-seventh Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $478,000.
The project on Alkah Canyon for local flood protection
at Arlington, Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 631, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $118,000.
WiLLAPA PivEE Basin
The project on the Willapa Eiver for local flood pro¬
tection at Eaymond, Washington, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 701,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $127,000.
Sec. 8. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and
directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for
flood control and allied purposes, including channel and major
drainage improvements, to be made under the direction of
the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the United States
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
and its Territorial possessions, which include the following-
named locahties, and the Secretary of Agriculture is author¬
ized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and
surveys for run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-erosion
prevention on such drainage areas; the cost thereof to be
paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for
such pm'poses: Provided, That after the regular or formal
reports made on any examination, survey, project, or work
under way or proposed are submitted to Congress, no supple¬
mental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless
authorized by law except that the Secretary of War may
cause a review of any examination or survey to be made
and a report thereon submitted to the Congress if such review
is required by the national defense or by changed physical
or economic conditions : And provided further, That the Gov¬
ernment shall not be deemed to have entered upon any
project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor
mentioned in this Act until the project for the proposed work
shall have been adopted by law : .
Chipola River, Alabama and Florida.
Wacasassa River and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Gilchrest and Levy Counties, Florida.
Oklawaha River and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida,
Hocking River in Hocking County, Ohio.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Choctawhatchee Kiver, Morida.
Scajaquada Creek and its tributaries, New York.
Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Endicott, John¬
son City, and Vestal, New York.
Buffalo River, Minnesota.
Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Marsh River, Minnesota.
Sand HiU River, Minnesota.
Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Roseau River, Minnesota.
Snake River, Minnesota.
Middle River, Minnesota.
Tamarac River, Minnesota.
Two Rivers, Minnesota.
WaiToad River and Bull Dog Creek, Minnesota.
Mississippi River and its tributaries, in the County of
Aitkin, Minnesota.
Apple River, Joe Daviess County, Illinois.
Maumee River, Indiana and Ohio.
Indian Creek, Indiana.
Osage River, Missouri and Kansas.
Deep Red Run in Tilhnan County, Oklahoma; Big Elk
Creek, Little Elk Creek, Salt Fork, Elm Creek, Saddle
Mountain, Turkey Creek, Oklahoma.
San Rafael Creek and its tributaries, California.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
Grand Eiver, South Dakota.
Moreau Eiver, South Dakota.
Bayamon and Hondo Eivers and their tributaries,
Municipality of Bayamon, Puerto Pico.
Sec. 9. That the sum of $810,000,000 is hereby author¬
ized to be appropriated for carrying out the improvements
herein, the sum of $10,000,000 additional is authorized to be
appropriated and expended in equal amounts by the Depart¬
ments of War and Agriculture for carrying out any examina¬
tion or survey provided for in this Act and any other Acts
of Congress, to be prosecuted by said Departments. The
sum of $1,500,000 additional is authorized to be appropriated
and expended by the Federal Power Commission for carry¬
ing out any examinations and surveys provided for in this
Act or any other Acts of Congress, to be prosecuted by the
said Federal Power Commission.
Sec. 10. That the following works of improvement for
run-off and waterflow retardation, and soil-erosion preven¬
tion, are hereby adopted and authorized in the interest of the
national security and with a view toward an adequate reser¬
voir of useful and worthy puhhc works for the post-war con¬
struction program to be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture, under the direction of the Secretary of Agricul¬
ture, in accordance with the plans of the respective reports
hereinafter designated and subject to the conditions set forth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
therein : Provided, That the necessary plans and preliminary
work may be prosecuted during the war with funds from
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such works
so as to be ready for rapid inauguration of post-war con¬
struction: Provided further, That when the existing critical
situation with respect to materials, equipment, and manpower,
no longer exists and in any event not later than immediately
following the cessation of hostihties in the present war, the
projects herein shall be initiated as expeditiously and prose¬
cuted as vigorously as may be consistent with budgetary
requirements.
Los Angeles Eivee Basin
The program on the Los Angeles Eiver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 426, Seventy-seventh Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$8,380,000.
Teinity Eivee Basin (Texas)
The program on the Trinity Eiver watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
Numbered 708, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost to the United States of $32,000,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
Little Tallahatchie Kivee Watershed
The program on the Little Tallahatchie River water¬
shed is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the
recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 892, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,221,000.
Coosa River Watershed (Above Rome, Georgia)
The program on the Coosa River watershed above
Rome, Georgia, is hereby approved substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of
Agriculture in House Document Numbered 236, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $1,233,000.
Little Sioux River Watershed
The program on the Little Sioux River watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom-
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 268, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,280,000.
Potomac River Watershed
The program on the Potomac River watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
80
1 Document Numbered 269, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
2 session, at an estimated cost to the United States of $859,000.
3 COLOEADO EiVEE WATERSHED (TeXAS)
4 The program on those portions of the Colorado Eiver
5 watershed included in the watersheds of Pecan Bayou, San
6 Saba Biver, Brady Creek, and the area tributary to the main
7 stream of the Colorado Biver below its confluence with the
8 Concho Biver and above the mouth of Pecan Bayou, is
9 hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom-
10 mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
11 Document Numbered 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
12 session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
13 $2,693,000.
14 Washita Biver Watershed
15 The program on the Washita Biver watershed is hereby
16 approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
17 tion of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House Docu-
18 ment Numbered 275, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
19 at an estimated cost to the United States of $11,243,000.
20 Sec. 11. That the balance remaining from the authoriza-
21 tion of $10,000,000 provided in section 7 of the Flood Con-
22 trol Act approved June 28, 1938, for the five-year period
23 ending June 30, 1944, to correlate the program for the im-
24 provement of watersheds by the Department of Agriculture
'1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
31
for measures of run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-
erosion prevention on the watersheds with the program for
the improvement of rivers and other waterways hy the De¬
partment of War is hereby reauthorized to be expended dur¬
ing the post-war period by the Department of Agriculture
for the prosecution of the work authorized in section 10 of this
Act: Provided, That not more than 20 per centum of the
authorization made available herein shall be expended on any
one project.
Sec. 12. That section 7 of the Act of June 28, 1938
(Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress) , is hereby
amended by adding at the end of the first sentence thereof
the following: “The Secretar}^ of Agriculture is hereby
authorized in his discretion to undertake such emergency
measures for run-off retardation and soil-erosion prevention
as may be needed to safeguard lives and property from floods
and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire
or any other natural element or force has caused a sudden
impairment of that watershed : Provided, That not to exceed
$100,000 out of any funds heretofore or hereafter appro¬
priated for the prosecution by the Secretary of Agriculture of
works of improvement or measures for run-off and water-
flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds
32
1 may be expended during any one fiscal year for such emer-
2 gency measures/^
Passed the House of Representatives May 9, 1944.
Attest: SOUTH TRIMBLE,
Clerk.
May 10 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce
<rt-
C
O
o
I-S
t>r
1-3
h-i«
P
CO
N
1=!
a-
O
1=1
3
(TQ
K>
O
■<
CD
O
CD
rt-
i-S
O
cn
o
fD
3
l-J
P
w
•a
3
&>
•-s
V
tr
p
O
O
i-j
O
U1
cr
P
s
o
i-j
o
p
Hh
<-5
O
CD
i-J
»-j
l:±i
n-
P
H- '•
o
o
P
a
o
t3
P
t— »
M*
1
o
>
z
>
n
H
X
00
cn(
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX
Executive orders mainly originate in
the bureaus and are expressions of bu¬
reaucratic minds. They often embody
the whims of bureau chiefs. They have
the effect of laws. Thus we have an
anomalous situation where the bureaus
are enacting nearly as many laws as the
Congress of the United States, the branch
of government that was set up by the
Constitution to write the laws of the land.
So numerous have the Executive orders
become that some thinking people are
beginning to wonder whether the resi¬
duum of government which we shall have
left if the trend long continues will be a
government by laws or a government by
Executive order. The fact is that we
have been moving ahead with galloping
speed toward the creation of a bureauc¬
racy which has about as much re¬
semblance to our original form of gov¬
ernment as night has to day.
Many of our people are talking these
days about the baneful effects of bu-
reacracy but talk without acts accom¬
plishes nothing. The resolution I have
introduced proposes to do something
about it.
There is no politics, whatever, in my
resolution and I know of no reason why
it should not have the support of every
Democratic and every Republican Mem¬
ber of Congress.
The impact of war alone has caused
many transformations and maladjust¬
ments of government. To correct these
maladjustments is the duty of Democrats
and Republicans alike. The people look
to Congress to hold the Government
within the bounds of the Constitution.
I think it would be particularly appro¬
priate for the initial corrective step to be
taken by the House of Representatives,
the body that is traditionally closest to
the people. If we adopt this resolution
we will be acting in good faith to carry
out our obligation to the people.
It proposes a means to start the de¬
mobilization of our overgrown bureauc¬
racy and to restore more normal consti¬
tutional processes in this country. If we
undertake this task in a spirit of mutual
respect and understanding, free from
politics and criticism, we shall certainly
succeed and America will be the bene¬
ficiary.
It is high time that thought should be
given to the dissolution of our overgrown
and dominant bureaucracy and to de¬
partures from the Constitution which
comprise a threat to the perpetuity of
our free government as designed by the
founding fathers. We as Americans
need to make an introspection to deter¬
mine whither we are going and to check
trends which are threateiring to change
the form and mold of our Government.
Under the directions contained in my
resolution there will be three practical
approaches to the problem of dissolving
our bureaucracy; First, by abolishing
agencies that were not needed in the first
ifistance or that have served their pur¬
pose; second, by reducing overgrown and
overstaffed bureaus to reasonable pro¬
portions; and third, by transferring the
activities of independent bureaucratic
agencies to regular departments where
they can be held under better check and
control. By applying all three of these
methods untold millions of dollars can
be saved and the Washington bureauc¬
racy can be reduced to a point where it
will cease to be a national menace.
In selecting the House Committee on
the Judiciary as the instrumentality to
make this all-important investigation
and study, pointing the way back to the
Constitution, I feel that I have made
a happy choice. The country will have
the utmost confiderrce in an investigation
conducted under the direction of Judge
Hatton W. Sumners, chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. He is flanked on
his committee by able lawyers who are
profound students of the Constitution.
No man in Congress — nor indeed in the
entire country — is better grounded in the
fundamentals of our Government than
Judge Sumners. His courageous states¬
manship and his profound knowledge of
the law have been demonstrated on many
occasions. Above all, his rugged Ameri¬
canism will be earnest assurance to the
country that whatever conclusions his
committee may reach will be in harmony
with the genius and the spirit of our free
American institutions.
Pea Coal
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. C. FREDERICK PRACHT
OP PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 10, 1944
Mr. C. FREDERICK PRACHT. Mr.
Speaker, under leave granted to extend
my remarks in the Record, I include the
following letter:
Philadelphia, Pa., February 10, 1944. ,
Dear Sib: There are too many strikes. I
have worked 63 years and have seen many
strikes. Most of them could have been set¬
tled better if there had taTeen a little Justice
on the one hand and a little more brains and
calm judgment on the other.
In my opinion an honest and free press
^could give a great deal of help by giving all
the facts. A half truth is no better than a
lie and one quarter is worse. So here are a
few facts. If you are in doubt, I will submit
the bills for your inspection. In 1898 we
paid $3.60 per ton of 2,240 pounds and the
coal was twice as large as it is today. I am
referring to pea coal.
I hold no brief for John L. Lewis, but as
Josh BiUings used to say ‘‘facts is stubborn
things.” There has been a reduction of 10
percent in weight and an increase of 233
percent in price.
1898, $3.50 a ton of 2,240 pounds.
September 1940, $7.95 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
December 1940, $8.25 a ton of 2.000 pounds.
1941, $8.75 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
1941, $9 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
1942, $9 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
1942, $9.50 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
1942, $9.80 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
January, 1943, $10.50 a ton of 2,000 pounds,
1943, $11.20 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
February 1944, $11.69 a ton of 2,000 pounds.
There has been an Increase of $8.19 per
ton. Please let us know how much was the
miners’ share and who received the rest of
the dough. Please print this so we can learn
if the miners were Justified in asking for a
few crumbs from the rich man's table.
■ Bernard E. Brooan.
A2457
Reserved International Rights
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. WARREN R. AUSTIN
OP VERMONT
IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES
Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of
Tuesday, May 9) , 1944
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the Appendix of the Record an article
entitled “Reserved International Rights,”
by Philip Marshall Brown, reprinted
from the American Journal of Interna¬
tional Law, volume 38, No. 2, April 1944.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows :
RESERVED INTERNATIONAL BIGHTS
The basic rights of the indeiiendence and
sovereignty of nations naturally imply cor¬
responding obligations. Tliese obligations
are due not only from one nation to another
but from all to each. Such rights do not de¬
pend solely on the power of any nation to
protect itself. There exists a collective com¬
munity interest that forbids either national
self-help or intervention by one nation in the
affairs of another.
This collective interest implies a supreme
law which, in spite of the lack of effective
sanctions, has its own Justification and va¬
lidity. It amounts virtually to a reserved
right which no nation may exercise by itself
alone.
No nation is free to do as it pleases either
within or without its own borders. Violation
of the rights of individuals or of states may
vitally affect the interests of all nations. A
kind of constitutional international law is
^adually emerging that defines the rights
and obligations of each and every nation. If
a nation demands respect for its basic rights,
it is obligated to respect certain reserved
rights vested in the international community.
The main principle Involved in the protec¬
tion of the collective interests of nations may
be formulated somewhat as follows: The in¬
ternational community reserves to itself the
protection of rights essential to the safety
and the welfare of all. The independence and
sovereignty of nations is limited by, and is
subordinate to, the general interest of the
international community. This general in¬
ternational reserved right includes the fol¬
lowing :
I. International security: Tlie present war
hsts become a war in defense of collective se¬
curity. When it is successfully ended per¬
manent guaranties must be established by
the victorious nations, with the adherence or
any other nations prepared to assume their
international obligations. How this shall be
achieved remains an unsolved problem call¬
ing for the highest kind of statesmanship.
II. The collective welfare of nations: This
includes such matters as public health, es¬
sential raw materials, the migration of in¬
dividuals, namely the unemployed, state¬
less persons, and criminals, standards of
labor, and relief work. These and other
cognate matters are gradually receiving rec¬
ognition as of collective interest and con¬
cern. The Atlantic Charter is evidence of
this fact.
III. Freedom of the seas: The slave trade
and piracy have already been recognized as
subject to International action. The use of
strategic bases, straits, canals, and other-
inland waterways will become of increasing
Importance to the whole international com¬
munity.
IV. Freedom of the air: There is general
recognition of th« fact that international
A2458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX
aviation, when peace Is established, must not
be left to the arbitrary control of separate
nations. It has become in a spectacular way
a collective Interest which concerns inter¬
national security as well as the peaceful in¬
tercourse of peoples.
This general principle of reserved interna¬
tional rights finds especial significance when
applied to the so-called right of self-determi¬
nation of peoples. The slogan, which finds
too easy acceptance, that no people are fit to
govern another people, when critically
analyzed, is seen to be superficial, false, and
even dangerous in its implications. It has
been unjustly used to disparage the achieve¬
ments of such colonial nations as Great Brit¬
ain, the Netherlands, and France, npt for¬
getting that the United States also has Its
colonial responsibilities. The term “imperi¬
alism” has come to have a loose and unfair
connotation of ruthless exploitation and
tyranny that is unwarranted by the facts.
Whatever the abuses of imperialism may
have been in remote times, it may fairly be
claimed that colonial administrations, with
rare exceptions, have rendered immeasurable
service to the subject peoples and to civil¬
ization in general. The proud assertion that
the British Empire has been the greatest
school for self-government ever created is
well founded. Witness the experiences of
the American Colonies, and the British do¬
minions, not excluding India, whose vaunted
national self-consciousness has emerged un¬
der British tutelage.
The sweeping assumption that all peoples
are fit to govern themselves and to control
their territories and resources in an exclu¬
sive manner is based on an inadequate under¬
standing of the great problem of colonial ad¬
ministration. To imply that the more ad¬
vanced and privileged peoples have no obliga¬
tions toward the backward peoples of Africa,
the Pacific Islands, Malaya, and India is as
luirealistic as it is cynical.
The principle of a general reserved inter¬
national right has special significance with
respect to strategic territories and resources.
The possession of such lands and raw mate¬
rials is now being recognized as a collective
trust, not only for the peoples immediately
concerned but for the entire world commu¬
nity. The exploitation of dependencies,
without due regard for the needs and in¬
terests of other nations, is rightly to be con¬
demned. There exists the superior claim of
international welfare and security. The doc¬
trine of international trusteeship, whether of
colonies, mandates, or of national domains,
is gradually becoming recognized.
Any strategic base for trade, aviation, mili¬
tary, or naval use is to be held subject to
the needs of the whole family of nations.
No selfish, exclusive claims may be permitted
to endanger the rightful Interests of other
nations. The Republic of Colombia never
had the sole right to control the natural in¬
ternational highway across the Isthmus of
Panama. Nor had the United States the
right to claim that the Panama Canal should
be for its own exclusive use. The Hay-
Paundefort Treaty of 1901 was an eloquent
tribute to this reserved international right.
So likewise the Suez Canal belongs neither
to Egypt nor to Great Britain; it is an inter¬
national highway.
Hawaii, Hong Kong, Singapore, Gibraltar,
and other strategic bases, are all outposts for
the service and the defense of all peoples.
Australia and New Zealand have discovered in
the course of the present war that their own
security is directly involved in the fate of
India. Such bases will have Immense sig¬
nificance in plans for post-war organization
and security.
The doctrine of reserved international
rights need not imply the violation of any of
the basclc rights of nations. On the con¬
trary, as in the case of the American Consti¬
tution, it should prove to be the supreme
guarantee of all liberties, whether national or
individual. While various races are emerg¬
ing from barbarism and feudalism, the com¬
munity of nations must exercise a collective
responsibility for the welfare and safety of all.
In some instances this responsibility may
have to be assumed by certain of the older na¬
tions, such as Great Britain, the Netherlands,
France, Belgium, Portugal, and the United
States, acting in behalf of the community of
nations for the good of all.
The clear recognition of the principle of
reserved international rights should help
greatly to clarify the thinking of critics of
colonial administration. Failure to do so can
only lead to confused counsels and unwise de¬
cisions. It is a principle deserving much more
serious consideration than it has heretofore
received. The publicists would do well to
lay less stress on the basic rights of nations
and to emphasize the reserved international
rights.
Philip Marshall Brown.
Flood Control on the Tennessee River
SPEECH
OP
HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN
OF ALABAMA
IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 10, 1944
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. Speaker, a few
minutes ago I listened with much inter¬
est to the very able address made by the
gentleman from Arkansas, with refer¬
ence to flood control on the Tennessee
River and some comparison as to the re¬
sult a similar program might accomplish
on the Arkansas, Missouri, and other
rivers of this country. The Tennessee
River is the most nearly completely con¬
trolled river in all the world and the
work that has been accomplished there
in the way of flood control is a very fine
example of what can be done when a
river is controlled by a unifled program.
Recently some very good editorials and
newspaper articles have appeared with
reference to flood control, pointing par¬
ticularly to the great difficulty that has
been experienced recently along the Mis¬
souri, the Arkansas, and other rivers in
the Midwest. At this point I include
some of these editorials for the informa¬
tion of the membership;
[From the Alabama Journal]
Every time the Missouri River has another
flood Missouri points to the Tennessee River
and wonder why Missouri cannot be protected
in similar manner. Under the unifled de¬
velopment of the Tennessee River the waters
are under such complete control by expert
handling of the lakes and dams that the old-
time floods are no longer possible.
[From the Washington Post of May 10, 1944]
Pilot Operation
In establishing the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority, Congress directed that the resources
of that valley were to be developed not sepa¬
rately, as in the past, but in a unifled way.
This is the distinguishing feature of T. V. A.,
the feature which has made it unique as an
experiment in regional planning and develop¬
ment. T. V. A. Chairman David Lillenthal
expressed his understanding of the congres¬
sional directive in a speech delivered the
other d^y to the American Society of Plan¬
ning offlcialg;
May 10
“The river was to be seen as a comprehen¬
sive whole, not as a series of unrelated sites
for dams. And each dam was to be seen as a
whole, as a unity, and made to yield all of its
potential value — not to yield only a naviga¬
tion channel behind its concrete barrier or
to yield flood control alone, as a separate
asset, or power or recreation. We were so to
design the dams that all those assets — naviga¬
tion, flood control, and power — were to be
made available to the people from each dam.
And all the series of structures were to be
dealt with as Interdependent, interrelated —
in short, a unity. * * * The river, under
the T. V. A. plan of comprehensive develop¬
ment, was not to be seen separately from the
land, as in the past. In nature the land and
the streams are a unity. The way land is
farmed determines the flow of waters both on
the land and in the rivers. The same unity
that exists in nature was to be observed as
basic in the T. V. A. plan of development.”
A demand for this sort of development has
arisen in the valley of the Missouri River, too
often in the past devastated by floods and
contributing to the periodic rampages of the
Mississippi. It is unlikely to be achieved
through the flood-control bill recently in¬
troduced by Senator Bennett Clark. This,
like tremendous past investments in flood
control, such as the Fort Peck Dam com¬
pleted under P. W. A. auspices in 1940, would
ignore the unity between land and stream,
would fail to integrate the region’s resources
and potentialities. Farmers along the Mis-
soui'i River now complain indignantly that
the Army engineers in charge of the Fort Peck
project, the largest earth-fill dam in the
world, so concentrated upon flood control
and navigation that they ignored the Im¬
portance of the river for irrigation purposes.
The farm lands of the area may be deprived
of water forever because of unbalanced de¬
velopment.
It is high time that a long-term Federal
plan for regional development, predicated
upon national needs and the relative urgency
of regional problems, be established. This is
a fundamental sort of post-war planning.
T. V. A. has furnished a pilot operation which
should be a goad to the Government in rem¬
edying the problem which has arisen on the
Missouri which, evidently, cannot be solved
piecemeal.
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of May 5,
1944]
How T. V. A. Tames the Floods
“The Tennessee Valley, too, had its almost
annual inundations; now huge reservoirs on
the main stream and its tributaries hold back
or release water as precisely as a spigot; the
Winter torrent of 1942 is described to show
how the first complete river-control system
works.” (From T. V. A. — Democracy on the
March, by David E. Lillenthal, Chairman of
the Board of T. V. A.; Harper & Bros., New
York, publisher.)
Before the men of the Tennessee Valley
built these dams, flooding was a yearly threat
to every farm and industry, every town and
village and railroad on the river’s banks, a
barrier to progress. Today, there is security
from that annual danger in the Tennessee
Valley.
With the erection of local protective works
at a few points, this region will be completely
safe, even against a flood bigger than any¬
thing in recorded history. A measure of pro¬
tection resulting from the Tennessee’s con¬
trol extends even beyond this valley; for no
longer will the Tennessee send her torrents
at flood crest to add what might be fatal
Inches to top the levees and spread desola¬
tion on the lower Ohio and the Mississippi.
In others of the earth’s thousand valleys,
people live under the shadow of fear that each
year their river will bring upon them dam¬
age to their property, suffering and death.
Here the people are safe.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX
DESIGN FOR WATER CONTROL j
In the winter of 1942, torrents came rag¬
ing down this valley’s two chief tributaries.
In Tennessee and Virginia. Before the river
Was controlled, this would have meant a
severe flood; the machinery of vital war In¬
dustries down the river at Chattanooga would
have stopped, under several feet of water,
with more than a million dollars of direct
damage resulting.
But in 1942 it was different. Orders went
out from the T. V. A. office of central con¬
trol to every tributary dam. The message
came flashing to the operator in the control
room at Hiwassee Dam, deep in the moun¬
tains of North Carolina; “Hold back all the
water of the Hiwassee River. Keep it out of
the Tennessee.”
The operator pressed a buttion. Steel gates
closed The water of that tributary was held.
To the Cherokee Dam on the Holston went
the message: “Keep back the flow of the
Holston.” To Chlckamauga Dam, just above
the Industrial danger spot at Chattanooga:
“Release water to make room for the waters
from above."
Day by day till the crisis was over, the men
at their control instruments at each dam
in the system received their orders. The
rate of water release from every tributary
river was precisely controlled. The Tennes¬
see was kept in hand. There was no de¬
struction, no panic, no inteiTuptlon of work.
Most of the water, instead of wrecking the
valley, actually produced a benefit in power,
when later it was released through the tur¬
bines.
Back of the orders from the water dis¬
patcher to the men who operate the dams
Is an elaborate system of reporting rainfall
and gaging the flow of streams so the height
of waters can be predicted for days in ad¬
vance.
To the head of the T. V. A. forecasting
division, from all over the watershed, from
every tributary stream, from 300 stations,
by teletype, telephone, and short-wave ra¬
dio come reports of the river’s stages, that is,
its height.
Reports come in from hundreds of remote
rain-gage stations, telephoned in by a
farmer’s wife, a crossroads merchant, a woods¬
man. From well-nigh inaccessible mountain
streams Ingenious T. V. A.-made devices send
In their reports by short-wave radio without
human intervention.
All the reports are combined and inter¬
preted by engineers, so that they know al¬
most exactly how much water will be swelling
the river the next day and the next.
THE RIVER’S GREATEST YIELD
Yesterday’s reports are checked with to¬
day’s and revised tomorrow, and the best
technical judgment is sent to the river con¬
trol room: just how much water is being
added to the river’s flow in the French Broad,
the Holston, the Clinch, the Hiwassee.
’The operating orders go out, turning water
off or on to meet the demands of the crisis
along a watercourse from the headwaters of
the Tennessee to the Gulf, almost as long as
the Mississippi from its headwaters to New
Orleans. ’The Tennessee River throughout
its length is controlled, as water is retained
at one dam, released at another. This valley
has been made safe.
This is not true of other river valleys. No
major river in the world is so fully controlled
as the Tennessee, no other river works so
hard for the people, for the force that used
to spend itself so violently is today turning
giant water wheels. The turbines and gen¬
erators in the T. V. A. powerhouses have
transformed it into electric energy. And this
is the river’s greatest yield.
The Rural Church and the Farm Family
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CURENCE CANNON
OF MISSOURI
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 10, 1944
Mr. CANNON of Missouri. Mr.
Speaker, under leave granted to extend
remarks, I include an address by Mrs.
Paul Palmer, of Ethlyn, Mo., national
secretary of the Associated Women of the
American Farm Bureau Federation, de¬
livered at the rural-urban conference
dinner at the Statler Hotel here in Wash¬
ington last evening.
Mrs. Palmer is one of the outstanding
women in farm-organization work in the
Nation today, and, with her husband and
children, operates one of the most suc¬
cessful farms in my section of Missouri.
She comes in daily and intimate contact
with most of the problems of rural life
and is in position to speak with the au¬
thority of personal knowledge on the
social, economic, and religious phases of
American agriculture. Her address on
the rural church is particularly pertinent
at this time:
’The rural church is as old as America it¬
self. As soon as our pilgrim fathers had
provided shelter for their families, they set
themselves to the task of constructing a
place to worship. They were building for
themselves a new world. ’The kind of a
world they wanted to live in was one in which
the individual had the right of religious
liberty and freedom of thought.
As civilization pushed westward, the pio¬
neer fathers followed the example which had
been set for them, and they, too, established
their churches. 'ITie church was as vital to
the souls of those men and women as the
spring of living water about which their
homes were grouped was to their physical
being. These, our first rural churches, were
crude in construction but rich in power and
influence.
A good friend of mine once gave me this
valuable' bit of advice. Said she, “When ad¬
dressing the public, choose a subject that
you know something about.” So this after¬
noon I want to tell you folks about a rural
church which I know so well. It is the
little church in my home community, where
I have attended services all of my life. One
of my earliest memories was that of my
mother and her barefoot brood of children
walking to church Sunday morning. We al¬
ways stopped in the grove adjacent to the
church and there put on our ill-fitting,
squeaky shoes before going into the services.
We children were not impressed with the
fact that it was a hardship to walk that
mile and a half to church. Neither were
we made conscious of our queer looking
clothes. The lesson we did learn was that
it was not only our duty but a privilege to
attend church on the Sabbath — that all
good people go to church Sunday. A lesson
I have never forgotten.
Today my little granddaughter who goes
with me each Sunday is the sixth generation
of my family to worship in this same church.
’The building is still standing and still in
use which my great grandfather and his
neighbors built so long ago. These men went
into the forest, cleared the trees for the site,
and with their own hands shaped those
timbers into a church building. Each gave
A2459
of his time and his talents. They built
well.
These families so few in number forgot
denominational differences. All of them
Worshipped together in harmony and unity.
’The name they inscribed up in the gable of
the building bears testimony of that truth.
’The name “Union Church,” the date “1861.”
That inscription has been carefully pre¬
served.
They did not neglect to provide for the
spiritual needs of the black man who came
to church with his master. On one side of
the building there was a door opening into
a stairway which led to what was then known
as the gallery. Here the black man and his
family sat and enjoyed the same services
with his master’s family who sat in the pews
below. TTieoretically he enjoyed the same
status as the white member. In studying
the early records of the church, we find
that on a certain Sabbath morning, Mandy,
the black woman belonging to Squire Allen,
came forward and gave her heart to her
Master and asked for church membership.
Instead of enduring the hardships of trav¬
eling long, cold, weary miles on foot or horse¬
back, or in the big farm wagon to attend
church, these pioneer fathers of ours could
have remained quietly at home reading
their Bible and truly worshiping God. They,
too, in their youth had been taught the ad¬
monition of the Master when he said, “Neg¬
lect not the assembling of yourselves together
for worship.” Farm families, just now, per¬
haps, might feel perfectly justified in ab¬
senting themselves from church attendance
when every precious gallon of gas must be
conserved. Too, they can turn on their
radios and in the comfort of their farm
home, listen to the wonderful messages de¬
livered by the most learned preachers and
orators of our day. Should they remain at
home they would not gain the strength
which comes from having a part in the wor¬
ship services. They would depart from their
early training which taught them to thank
God for a free church where they could
worship in their own way, where they could
listen to the honest thoughts of good men,
even if those thoughts were not expressed
so fluently. There is danger Just now that
the feeling of security which the American
people have will lessen their spiritual en¬
deavor.
’This rural church which I have tried to
picture for you is an unpretentious building.
It has no spire reaching high into the heav¬
ens; neither does the sunlight filter through
stained glass windows. It is just a low,
white, frame building which has meant so
much to the spiritual life of six generations
who have lived under the shadow of its in¬
fluence, a place dear to the hearts of the lay¬
men and clergy of those generations; a spot
to which they return to renew friendships or
to partake of the old-fashioned basket din¬
ners spread in the shade of the trees. They
return to the old church when they are in
the slough of despondency; when doubts
creep into their thinking: and when their
spiritual life is at a low ebb. in order that
they might regain the religious steadfastness
of their youth.
Probably one of the reasons for the long
life of this church has been the fact that ,the
younger geperations have been given places
of responsibility in the church and an oppor¬
tunity to express their thoughts. New life
must be injected into an organization if it
is to survive and grow. I would appeal to
you, the farm leaders of America, to main¬
tain and strengthen your rural churches. If
they have been abandoned, revive them.
Now, as never before, our faith in Christian
religion and the rural church should be
strengthened. If we are to have a Christian
democracy, we must have courageous Chris-
A2460
May 10
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX
tion leadership. Itr the post-war era, religion
must furnish the leadership for social im¬
provement. There is no better place to train
those leaders than back in our own rural
communities.
In this period of transition the things we
once did and the way we did them will pass
away. We have every reason to believe that
the church too will progress with the times.
When it does let us hold fast to those basic
fundamental principles of religion which
characterized the faith of our fathers— ^the
foundation of the rural church.
Our boys over across say, “We want to come
back to find things as we left them.” These
boys are living in a world which has lost all
sense of balance, yet they still cherish their
ideals and beliefs. It gives them a feeling of
stability to know that back home on the
farm, just as always, mother, dad, and the
children, hustle a bit faster with the chores
Sunday morning so that they might be in
their accustomed places in the little com¬
munity church. I think that probably the
things that they are fighting for have more
meaning if they know that their places in the
church will be waiting for them when they
return.
Farm families of this great Nation of ours
who can forget tenets, creeds, and isms, and
sincerely worship together in spirit and in
truth, will create an influence which will
radiate to the four corners of the earth.
That influence will be a potent factor in
helping to make this world safe for differ¬
ences. That is the kind of a world you and
I want to live in.
Business Approach to Government
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
or
HON. JAMES M. TUNNELL
OF DELAWARE
IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES
Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of
Tuesday, May 9), 1944
Mr. TUNNELL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the Appendix of the Record excerpts
from an address delivered at Yale Uni¬
versity by Chester Bowles, Price Admin¬
istrator, which were printed in the
Washington Post of May 9, 1944. The
excerpts from the address were printed
as a public service by the International
Latex Corporation, of my State.
There being no objection, the excerpts
from the address were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Business Approach to Government
(Address by Chester Bowles, Price
Administrator)
In spite of the many false starts and the
many mistakes, in spite of waste and ineffi¬
ciency, our Government has performed the
essential tasks required of it in war and per¬
formed them brilliantly. What is more, it
has carried out these tasks within the frame¬
work of the democratic process. Never before
in our history has the democratic process
worked with greater vigor and vitality than
it does today.
We can be proud not only of what we have
done but of how we have done it. We have
given the world a demonstration both of our
national strength and the vigor of our sys¬
tem of government. And yet there are few of
us who do not look forward to the day when
the war will be over and the role of govern¬
ment will shrink greatly from its present
dimensions.
I fully share the view that the role of
government must be greatly reduced after the
war. I yield to no man In my attachment
to the free-enterprise system. I am per¬
suaded that no other system could serve us
as well. But I am profoundly concerned, lest
in our eagerness to shed ourselves of wartime
government and give free rein to initiative
and enterprise after the war, we coijpeive the
role of government too narrowly. For if we
are not prepared to accept enough govern¬
ment, we invariably end up with too much.
It may be paradoxical, but it is true.
EITHER ENOUGH OR TOO MUCH
Our experience in the thirties yields a sig¬
nificant lesson. Because we did not promptly
require Government to assume responsibility
for stemming the growing depression in 1930,
the complete collapse in 1932 left us with no
alternative but for the Government to move
in to put our economy back on the road to
recovery. The lesson of that experience is
plain and it is one that we must not forget
as we look forward to the post-war period.
By now we should know that it is a whole
lot easier to keep a truck on the road than to
haul it out of a ditch.
If we want to avoid too much government
after the war, we must recognize In advance
the proper functions of government and we
must agree on the policies and on the appro¬
priate organization to discharge those func¬
tions efficiently and democratically. If we
don’t act wisely it may spell our finish as a
democratic nation. For if, after the war, we
permit another great depression to over¬
whelm us. we shall be forced to resort to such
a bagful of Government cures that we may
entirely lose our character of a free economy
and a free people.
I gravely doubt whether the seriousnes of
the decisions that we must make is as widely
understood as it must be. Although fear of
post-war collapse is widespread, there is far
too easy an assumption on the part of many
that we have only to strip off the controls
after the war and we’ll go right back to peace¬
time operations without a hitch. There are
two things wrong with that view: It won’t be
easy and we can’t go back.
WE CAN’T GO BACK
It is no easy matter to pull seventy-five
billions of Government spending out of our
markets without precipitating a collapse of
prices, incomes, and production. And hav¬
ing learned how amazingly productive our
economy can be, having learned that it lies
within our power to create a level of pros¬
perity double anything we have known be¬
fore, we won’t be content to go back to the
artificial scarcities, the unemployment, the
poverty in the midst of plenty that we knew
in the thirties.
There are many who will go along with
the view that in the years Immediately fol¬
lowing the war only government can un¬
wind the economy without a break-down and
that government must accept this respon¬
sibility. What people are principally wonder¬
ing about is what the role of government
will be when reconversion is over.
To me the answer is plain. The function
of government in a modern, highly indus¬
trialized economy such as ours must be at
all times to sustain the level of the na¬
tional Income, to insure that markets are
available for everything we can produce, and
that jobs are thus provided for all who seek
them.
This function does not entail any en¬
croachment upon freedom of enterprise, any
infringement of our personal liberties. For I
do not conceive this function of government
as one of regulation or compulsion. I con¬
ceive it as one of encouragement and sup¬
port. I see the government of the future
discharging this function not through regu¬
lation and directive but through broad fiscal
and financial measures. When for any rea¬
son the flow of private investment and con¬
sumption expenditures diminishes, govern¬
ment can, by decreasing its taxes and in¬
creasing its expenditures, offset that decline.
On the other hand, when the flow of private
expenditures increases to a point which
threatens Inflation, through an increase of
taxes and decrease of Government expendi¬
tures the economy can be kept on an even
keel.
MARKETS FOR ALL
Our free-enterprise system has demon¬
strated itself to be the most dynamic and
the most productive the world has ever
known. But that demonstration has been
only Intermittent. In the past, for every
year of boom our system has suffered a year
of depression in which we lost much of the
ground we had gained. As I conceive it, this
central function of government will be to
enable free enterprise to maintain, year in
and year out, its amazing record of produc¬
tion, and to fulfill, year in and year out, its
promise of increasing material and moral
well-being.
No businessman will deny that the fear
of unemployment has been a powerful
deterrent to the full use of current income
for the purchase of homes and cars and all
the modern conveniences and luxuries that
oui- system can produce In such abundance.
No businessman will deny that the fear of
periodic depression, of collapsing prices and
markets, has been an even more powerful
deterrent to expansion of mvestment. Given
the assurance that markets and employment
and incomes will be sustained, the damping
down of consumption and investment will
disappear. It may well turn out that there
will be ample private demand for everything
we can produce and Government will not
be called upon for large operations to sustain
the national income.
It is certain that the more effective the
guaranties made by the Government and the
more widely these guaranties are accepted,
the less will be the positive action which the
Government will be called upon to make,
for the more effective the guaranty the
greater will be the confidence in the eco¬
nomic outlook and the more certainly will
potential demand for goods and services be
tramslated into orders.
It has taken a Second World War to press
home upon us what our responsibility in
international affairs must be. I hope it will
not take a second great depression to teach
us what is the appropriate role of govern¬
ment in the economic sphere.
As a public service, we present excerpts
from an address delivered at Yale University.
International Latex Corporation,
Playtex Park, Dover, Del.
Slogan Gone Wrong
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OP
HON. C. FREDERICK PRACHT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 10, 1944
Mr. C. FREDERICK PRACHT. Mr.
Speaker, under leave to extend my re¬
marks in the Record, I include an edi¬
torial on the subject Slogan Gone Wrong
from the Philadelphia Inquirer of April
21, 1944:
SLOGAN GONE WRONG
The bill to exempt residents of other States
from Philadelphia’s wage tax has passed the
National House.
Supporters of the bill in Washington may
or may not believe the intended relief Uss
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX
philosophy that has made the United States
what it is.
And to all Americans who believe them¬
selves Christians, 1 say that anti-Semitism is
not only un-American, it is antichristlan.
It is impossibie to understand how a man
can hate or persecute the Jews and at the
same time pretend to keep allegiance to the
principles of Christianity. The very basis of
the Christian faith Is a belief in the essential
equality and dignity of the Individual man.
According to the teachings of Christ, the
first and greatest commandment is to love
God above all things, and the second Is like
to the first: “Thou shalt love they neighbor
as thyself.” Real Christianity begets love
in the heart of man. It was Christ who first
taught men the real meaning of brotherhood,
whose gospel was love for every man, woman,
and child. And Christianity further teaches
that all human beings are neighbors — what¬
ever their race, color, or beliefs. To love one
neighbor and not another, to hate and per¬
secute our Jewish neighbors, is un-Chrlstian.
A great Christian leader. Pope Pius XI,
once said of anti-Semitism: “It is a move¬
ment in which we Christians can have no
part whatsoever. Anti-Semitism is unaccept¬
able. Spiritually we are Semites.” The true
Christian may hate falsehood and sin, but
he cannot hate his brother man. He dare
not hate or contribute to the persecution of
those whose racial background or beliefs differ
from his.
But in a larger sense, the true Christian
will do more than merely tolerate such per¬
sons. In their hour of trial he will rush to
their defense, bind up their wounds, and aid
them in their search for security and peace.
He will not remain, aloof in the face of in¬
justice that runs counter to the fundamental
tenets of his faith. For in his conscience the
true Christian knows that to be silent under
such circumstances Is to join hands with the
forces of evil and forget that Christians them¬
selves were the subjects of discrimination and
persecution not so long ago.
This is no remote or academic problem that
we face, my fellow Americans. This enemy
is already within our gates. The tide is rising.
The passions, the prejudices, and the fears
spawned by anti-Semitism are mounting con¬
stantly. The time to quell them is now.
The battle must be fought and won
through appeals to reason and morality in
the public forums, the press, the schools, the
churches, and the homes. But first, it must
be won in the heart and mind of each of
us — face to face with his conscience.
I cannot believe that it is our destiny to
hate one another. I am convinced that in
the heart of every normal human being
there is a great yearning for the brotherhood
of man. That goal is not impossible if we
will but conscientiously strive to be that
which is within the reach of all — good neigh¬
bors and friends with all our fellow men. Let
us then look to the future, not as members
of a nation conflhed in a spiritual and in¬
tellectual strait jacket of racism, but as a
free people imbued with a respect for the
dignity of each individual. Each one of us
can be a better Jew, a better Protestant, a
better Catholic, or a better citizen, what¬
ever his faith may be. Then we shall be on
the right road and the promise of a great
free nation will not then have been shat¬
tered. America will be, instead, a stronger
nation morally and spiritually, a nation
wisely prepared to defend itself and able to
play its manly part in world affairs with an
Intelligent and robust sense of justice.
Gripped in this great world struggle, let
us ask ourselves, “Why pour out this blood
if not to emerge a richer nation, enriched in
our own way of life?” Why all this agony,
if not to bring forth an America unravished
by the hates and lusts of the Old World,
an America that is a just power as well as a
great one.
Let us hope that it will be so. Let us work
together to see that it shall be. And when
the task is done, let us walk humbly among
men, proud less of our power than of our re¬
spect for the rights of all mankind.
Authorizations for Reservoirs, Levees,
and Flood Walls for Flood Control
SPEECH
or
HON. LEO E. ALLEN
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 9, 1944
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H. ». 4485) author¬
izing the construction of certain public
works on rivers and harbors for flood con¬
trol, and for other purposes.
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
one cannot long sit in the House of Rep¬
resentatives without an appreciation
that we are truly the greatest delibera¬
tive body in the democracy of the world.
Here we meet on common ground to give
expression to the needs and will of our
people. To adequately fulfill our duties
we at times individually come into con¬
flict one with the other, because the
problems of the people we represent so
greatly differ. We have heard the gen¬
tleman from North Dakota [Mr. LemkeI
state today that the greatest problem
confronting his people was lack of water.
I come before you emphasizing the fact
that the most vital problem immedi¬
ately confronting the people of Galena,
Ill., which is my residence, is too much
water at not infrequent times.
Galena, Ill., has been the scene of
devastating floods for over a century.
During the past hundred years rushing
and uncontrolled waters have rushed
down upon its citizens over 15 times,
bringing consternation, destruction, and
death. Citizens have witnessed the busi¬
ness district in complete shambles. Busi¬
ness houses which were built for the gen¬
erations have been compelled to close
their doors forever. Manufacturing es¬
tablishments which have given work to
many, have had their stocks and ma¬
chinery ruined, depriving employees of
gainful employment for long periods of
time. Galena, one of Illinois oldest cities
possessing many historic shrines includ¬
ing General Grant’s home, mecca of hun¬
dreds of thousands of tourists from
throughout the world was until today
uncertain of its future. I say today, be¬
cause the flood bill now before us car¬
ries an authorization of $300,000 to
remedy disastrous flood conditions in
Galena. It is needless for me to say that
I am gratified with this degree of con¬
sideration because it at least recognizes
a situation upon which I have worked un¬
tiringly for over 10 years. Those of you
who have flood problems in your district
know the work involved in order to ob¬
tain the necessary legislation.
Sincerely I express appreciation of the
aid and assistance given me by the var-
A2453
ious members of the Flood Committee
and the Corps of Engineers. Only this
morning the chairman of the committee
permitted me to appear before his com¬
mittee and the Cliief of Engineers, re¬
garding the amendment which I have
just offered. During my many years in
Congress I have refrained from offering
many amendments. I have held in most
instances that the various committees
after extensive hearings are in a better
position to judge the facts. However,
in this particular case I sincerely believe
• that I am the better judge. I have lived
in that locality practically my entire life.
During all those years I have studied this
problem which is so vital to the entire
community. I know, as no one else here
knows, the compelling needs. That is
the reason for this amendment.
In keeping with an act of Congress,
the Army engineers made a final survey
of the Galena River for the purpose of
submitting plans to remedy the situation.
In 1940 the engineers reported several
plans. They recommended plan A, which
provides for the construction of a system
of levees and flood walls with sewer
drains and pumping plant, the removal
of certain obstructive bridges, and the
enlargement and improvement of the
channel, the estimated cost to be $418,-
000, of which the city of Galena should
assume $118,000. That is the plan em¬
braced in this bill. To me it is definitely
insufficient, and that is the reason that
I have offered this amendment.
In addition to plan A the Army en¬
gineers also submitted plan B. This B
plan is without question the more effi¬
cacious. It provides for retention res¬
ervoirs at a cost of $2,623,500, of which
the United States will pay $2,502,300 and
local interests $121,200. I emphasize
that this is the most satisfactory plan
because, according to the engineers’ re¬
port under plan A, and I quote from the
report:
It will be noted that plan A does not pro¬
tect the privately owned Westwick loundiy on
the point of land at the junction of Galena
River and Hughlett Branch, or the plant of
the Galena Manufacturing Co., on the east
bank of the main stream, just below Madison
Street; nor will it prevent the inundation dur¬
ing major fioods of certain small residential
areas along the east bank of the river and on
the west bank below Spring Street.
To me a job half done is not done at
all. It requires a great deal of time and
expense for the engineers to become lo¬
cated. When they are located is it not
sensible they complete the job? To pro¬
vide protection for part of the com¬
munity and leave the rest unguarded
seems impractical to me, and, I am .sure,
to you. The two factories which are
given no protection under plan A are
of paramount importance to the work¬
ers and to the community. They are
the two largest factories in Joe Daviess
County. The livelihood of many de¬
pends upon the noninterruption of work
in these plants. For years these fac¬
tories have borne the brunt of many
floods. Now that we have recognized
the need for protection in the locality
why not give to all the needed protec¬
tion? Why leave with some the ever¬
lasting fear of destruction? I ask you
to vote for my amendment.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX May 10
A2454
Post-war Health — War Diseases Call for
Plans Now for Preventive Program
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. LYNDON B. JOHNSON
OP TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 9, 1944
Mr. LYNDON B. JOHNSON. Mr.
Speaker, good editorials from newspa¬
permen will no doubt play a large part
In our post-war planning. I am always
thankful for suggestions we get from
men who make a study of our civic needs.
Most of our newspapermen have this
thought foremost in mind when they sit
down to write an editorial. Under leave
to extend my remarks in the Congres¬
sional Record, I wish to include the fol¬
lowing article which appeared in the
Austin Statesman and was written by a
friend of mine and a very able newspa¬
perman of the Associated Press staff, Mr.
Homer G. Olsen:
POST-WAR HEALTH - WAR DISEASES CALL FOR
PLANS NOW FOR PREVENTIVE PROGRAM
(By Homer G. blsen)
Certainly not the least important of the
post-war plans will be a world-wide health
program, global conflict having scattered peo¬
ples everywhere and pointed up the increas¬
ingly difficult problems that lie ahead.
Thus declared Dr. George W. Cox, State
health officer, In an address, highlights of
which was published by the Journal of the
American Medical Association.
Dr. Cox said:
“North American troops in the war the¬
aters may return home contaminated with -
various tropical and other parasites and dis¬
ease-producing organism's which are at pres¬
ent not found in sections of North America.
Tropical countries will be opened to migra¬
tion after the war by northern peoples who
are not immune to the endemic diseases.
We should begin to plan to meet the new
public-health programs as they may affect
North America, and, at the same time, our
humanitarian interests dictate that we con¬
tribute to a world-wide health program.”
“Since this Nation will probably be con¬
fronted with a serious post-war health prob¬
lem, it appears m'ost highly desirable that
we now plan a definite health program along
environmental lines so fundamentally sound
and attractive that it will be acceptable to
individuals, communities, States, and the
Nation as a whole,” Cox asserted.
Recommending preparation of plans which
can be utilized the moment manpower is
available to put them into effect, he sug¬
gested the program should cover at least in
part the following projects:
1. Local health centers with laboratory
and equipment to house local health per¬
sonnel so as to enable sanitation forces to
function at maximum efficiency.
2. Plans for water supplies and treatment
where needed.
3. Sewerage systems and treatments where
needed.
4. Municipal or cooperative abattoirs.
5. Municipal or cooperative oyster-shuck¬
ing and shellfish-packing establishments.
6. Municipal or cooperative canning or
food processing plants.
7. Recruitment and training of more sani¬
tation personnel to carry forward sanitary
work not only at home but in the republics
to the south and other countries.
8. Planning of drainage systems where such
drainage will minimize the mosquito-borne
disease problem.
9. Planning of a mutual aid program in
rodent control.
10. Planning of a cooperative program of
garbage disposal.
11. The planning for the eliminsftion of
slum areas and making available adequate
housing for the population.
12. The planning of a program which
will provide adequate lighting, heating, and
ventilation facilities in public buildings but
more especially in schools.
13. An advisory program that would be
helpful to industries in the elimination of
industrial hazards.
14. Promulgation of plans which will In¬
sure the farm population safe living ’condi¬
tions patterned somewhat after the Farm Se-
cuity Administration program which pro¬
vided aid in the correction of farm water
supplies, waste disposal systems, screening,
and the like.
15. Setting up short training schools for
food handlers, water and sewage plant op¬
erators as well as swimming pool operators,
operators of food processing plants, such as
pasteurization jBlants, and hygienists for in¬
dustrial plants.
16. The initiation of immediate steps to¬
ward securing an appropriation to the public
health service of necessary funds to in¬
augurate and carry out a direct emergency
program of community sanitation, as has al¬
ready been done in the case of malaria con¬
trol.
Authorizations for Reservoirs, Levees,
and Flood Walls for Flood Control
SPEECH
OF
HON. LEO E. ALLEN
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 9, 1944
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H. R. 4485) authoriz¬
ing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
the need for the adoption of the amend¬
ment which I have now offered is most
necessary and urgent. You have just re¬
jected my other amendment which would
have raised the authorization for flood
relief for the Galena River from $300,000
to $2,623,500. This present amendment
raises the authorization from $300,000
to $418,000. I say that the adoption of
this amendment is of great importance
because under plan A which now stands
by reason of your rejection of plan B, the
cost of construction is $418,000, of which
the United States is to pay $300,000 and
the local community $118,000. Accord¬
ing to the report of the engineers’ investi¬
gation, it is disclosed that the city of
Galena has a bonded indebtedness of
$93,700, which is only $5,684.40 less than
the legal maximum fixed by the Illinois
Constitution of 1870. Therefore, it is
obvious that even should plan A, which
authorizes but a $300,000 contribution by
the Federal Government, become a law,
no construction would result because the
local community could not bond them¬
selves for the additional $118,000. The
Army engineers report the great need of
this flood construction: the Committee
on Flood Control has reported favorably
upon it. I assure you personally it is
greatly needed. Without the adoption
of this amendment it could not be pos¬
sible. I ask you to vote for this amend¬
ment.
Solution of Post-war Employment
in America
EXTENSION OP “REMARKS
OF
HON. JOSEPH J. O’BRIEN
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 10, 1944
Mr. O’BRIEN of New York. Mr.
Speaker, under leave granted to extend
my remarks in the Record, I include the
following article by Hon. James L. Whit¬
ley, former Member of Congress, of
Rochester, N. Y.:
Solution op Post-war Employment in
America
The solution of the problem will require
most careful consideration by our ablest
minds. We cannot accept the challenge
lying down. World War No. 1 taught us a
lesson: In time of war prepare for peace.
The consensus of opinion by our military
leaders is that the war in Europe will end in
1944 with victory for the Allies, and that the
war with Japan will end in the same manner
at a later date. After the end of the con¬
flict in Europe, thousands of plants through¬
out the country will taper down in the pro¬
duction of war implements and the millions
of men and women engaged in defense work
with millions of ex-service men will await the
green-light signal to start the greatest in¬
dustrial era in the history of our country.
As war production declines we should im¬
mediately start the production of tools and
machinery necessary for civilian production.
A Government agency should be set up with¬
out delay to make a complete inventory and
description of all machinery under Govern¬
ment control. This would permit industry
to secure machines for civilian production
without delay and save millions of lost man¬
power hours even before semireadjustment.
regulations
Steps should be taken at this time to re¬
move every possible obstacle regulating free
enterprise-, complicated, unnecessary, bureau¬
cratic blanks should no longer be required
for every move we make. Business should
be given a free hand, subject only fo regu¬
lations to insure against monopoly, fraud,
and unfair practices. Business loosened
from red tape will emerge with speed, and
millions of idle dollars will find way into
many free enterprises.
TAXATION
Taxes will be an important factor in any
plan after we emerge from war to peace.
With a high debt obligation which may
exceed $300,000,000,000, we may expect to
have the tax problem with us for some time
to come. When the time arrives that taxes
may be reduced such reduction should be
for the encouragement of private enterprise
and to stimulate consumption. There
should be no double taxation. A stock¬
holder in a corporation pays his proportion
of the tax on the earnings of the company
and an additional tax on the dividends re¬
ceived, while a bondholder in the same com¬
pany is subject to a single tax on the amount
received: to encourage investment this dis¬
crepancy should be corrected. Income-tax
report blanks for the upward of 50,000,000
taxpayers should be simplified. The Gov-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX
quired to retain farm land owned for return¬
ing servicemen until July 1, 1945, or until
after the regular legislative session has been
able to adopt a more comprehensive land-for-
veterans program.
• * ♦ * •
Returns are still coming to the office of
G. N. D. A., where they are tabulated like
election returns, showing the status by
townships and counties and the total for the
State.
“Newspapers in each county have been
given individual county returns to date,”
Groom says, "and when complete figures
have been secured we will have a record
which it is felt will be of special value to
the regular session of the legislature which
will meet next January to make plans to
aid returning soldiers. It will aid various
communities in post-war plans.”
Groom reports great Interest in the sur¬
vey. Post-war planning organizations of sev¬
eral States have written for the question¬
naire, and for the printed forms used in the
tabulations. It appears the G. N. D. A. plan
will form the framework for at least three
other States seeking information as to the
desires of the returning serviceman.
CANVASS FIGURE TOTALS
Below is a summary of the North Dakota
survey:
1. Number of married men, 1,300.
2. Number of single men, 4,985.
3. Number on farms when called, 6.039.
4. Number farming on own account when
called, 1,575.
5. Number wanting to farm when dis¬
charged, 6,523.
6. Number who prefer mixed farming, 4,874.
7. Number who prefer power farming, 609.
8. Number who prefer dairy farming, 40.
9. Number who own land, 676.
10. Number having no land, 4,847.
11. Number having some stock and equip¬
ment, 1,654.
12. Number having no stock or equipment,
3,969.
13. Number having plans made for farming
when discharged, 945.
14. Number wanting to buy land, 3,393.
15. Number wanting to rent, 2,130.
16. Number wanting land with buildings,
4.604.
17. Resources: Cash, bonds, real estate —
average per man, $1,050.
Water for Human Needs Shall Come First
SPEECH
OF
HON. EVERETT M. DIRKSEN
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 9, 1944
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H. R. 4485) authoriz¬
ing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog¬
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
DirksenI.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, in this
bill the Committee on Flood Control re¬
ports a project with reference to the Mis¬
souri River that is to cost $200,000,000.
That is a very substantial outlay and it
ought to be examined with some caution.
It will apply to a river that starts about
17 miles above St. Louis and runs a
course across the country to the south¬
western section of Montana for a dis¬
tance of nearly 2,500 miles. It is really
a monumental water course. It drains
something more than half a million
square miles of this country, and it is
proposed in this bill to make provision
for an over-all comprehensive project
which will include channel straightening
and improvements and reservoirs and
other works to provide, first for naviga¬
tion; second, for irrigation; third, for
power; and fourth, for flood control.
They do not run particularly in that or¬
der, but that is the over-all plan for
which $200,000,000 are to be expended.
Now come the folks from this area,
where water is a priceless commodity,
and say that before we take away all their
water for navigation purposes to sustain
a barge or a vessel that may haul com¬
modities, we believe that preference
should be given to beneficial consumptive
uses.
What are those uses? First, domestic.
That is fundamental: that Involves
drinking water; that involves water for
livestock; that appeals to an instinct of
self-preservation, and navigation must
necessarily be subordinated to that.
Second, they want to have preference
for municipal purposes. There is not a
soul in this body who would deny a vil¬
lage or a town the necessary water in
preference to navigation. That is all
they ask for in this amendment. They
want preference to be given to Irrigation
because that is vital to the sustenance of
life out there. Without water there can
be no vegetables, no produce of the soil,
nothing with which to sustain life. It
is just a matter of common sense, and
you cannot argue with that kind of fun¬
damental need.
They want preference for water for
mining. Look at the first section of this
bill, and what does it say? It sets up a
reservoir of projects for the post-war
period. For what purpose? Manifest¬
ly to make jobs. That is what it does.
If a mine cannot get water preference
for continued operation, you destroy
tobs. Does that not make sense? They
want preference also for industrial uses —
meaning for their factories and their
mining plants and .similar purposes.
That means jobs. This bill is dedicated,
among other things, to making jobs in
the post-war period. Would you destroy
them now by not giving them a prefer¬
ence for this water? What difference
does it make if you have a sufficient
channel to float a battleship, if the prod¬
uce of the soil and the contents of facto¬
ries and the livelihood and self-preserva¬
tion that are involved here are not first
given preference?
There is ample precedent for it. Back
in 1902, we began placing a very compre¬
hensive reclamation act on the books.
We have added to it every year. Read
the language of those acts. What does
the language say? The water users shall
have preference. That is the essence of
the reclamation law, and it has been
regarded as good gospel for more than
two generations. The law was drafted
by experts who had some knowledge of
the West and of its essential needs.
Before us is an amendment. What
does it say? It says in effect that west
of the ninety-seventh meridian, prefer¬
A2441
ence shall be given to water for drink¬
ing purposes, for livestock, for irriga¬
tion, to keep factories going, as well as
all those other things that generate com¬
merce, and that navigation and com¬
merce shall come last. Certainly that
ought to appeal to every good instinct
and to the common sense of Members of
this House, and that is why I am for it.
Recently I had first-hand opportunity to
appreciate what water really means in
that country. That is why I am for that
amendment.
The Members of the House from those
western spaces have expressed a sus¬
tained concern about this matter. You
will remember the effort which was made
some weeks ago to have similar lan¬
guage incorporated in the rivers and
harbors bill. Their efforts are not dic¬
tated by selfishness or provincial inter¬
ests. They know as no other person
can know, from a lifetime of experience
what water means and they seek assur¬
ance that the basic daily needs of their
people will not be neglected and that
navigation shall be subordinated to their
essential needs. Is that asking too
much?
The Uoited States Housing Act and Its
Operations
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. FREDERICK C. SMITH
OF OHIO
IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 10, 1944
Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
under leave to extend my remarks in the
Record, I include a speech I delivered
before the National Association of Home
Builders of the United States, May 9,
1944, at the Statler Hotel, Washington,
D. C.:
In 1939 I made a rather exhaustive analysis
of the operations of the United States Hous¬
ing Act. You will recall that the United
States Housing Authority came to Congress
at that time with a request for an authoriza¬
tion to issue additional obligations to the
amount of $800,000,000. The additional au¬
thorization requested would have brought the
total authorizations up to $1,600,000,000.
It asked for a change in the Housing Act
providing for annual contributions aggre¬
gating not more than $45,000,000 per annum
in addition to the contracts theretofore au¬
thorized by the United States Housing Act.
Notwithstanding the fact that the United
States Housing Authority did intensive lob¬
bying in Congress to induce the acceptance of
its request, it failed in that endeavor.
Though its bill passed the Senate, it was de¬
feated in the lower House by a decisive
majority.
We might review a few of the more im¬
portant points that were brought out in that
analysis. The propaganda put out by Mr.
Nathan Straus, Administrator of the United
States Housing Authority, was that:
“Ours is a decentralized program in which
the responsibility for carrying out housing
programs rests not with the United States
Housing Authority but with the communities
themselves. » * * The United States
Housing Authority progi-am is entirely de¬
centralized. The United States Housing Au-
A2442
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— APPENDIX May 10
thority cannot turn a single spadeful of dirt
or lay a single brick. It is purely a finan¬
cial assistance agency, which makes loans and
subsides to local public-housing authorities.”
This was shown to be completely false. In¬
stead, that program is in every sense a Fed¬
eral program and completely centralized in
Washington.
The United States Housing Authority in¬
stigated the enactment of laws to set up
State housing bodies, and further instigated
the State legislatures to pass enabling acts
to create the so-called local housing author¬
ities. In fact, the United States Housing
Authority initiates, directs, and maintains
complete control over every act relating to
the development of the housing project down
to and Including a requirement that the
rents of the occupants of the dwelling units
must have its approval before they can be
put into effect.
I followed the operations of this public¬
housing scheme very closely when an attempt
was made in 1938 to locate one of its projects
in the city of Marion, Ohio, my home town.
I was mayor of Marion at the time that took
place. Marlon residents one evening picked
up their daily newspapers and read in large
headlines that Marion had been granted a
million dollars by the United States Housing
Authority for the building of a Federal hous¬
ing project. Diligent search and inquiry re¬
vealed the fact that there had not been even
the slightest demand on the part of any¬
body in Marion for any Federal-housing proj¬
ect. It was an election year and it had be¬
come generally known that I might be a
candidate for Congress. I accepted the chal¬
lenge and began informing our citizens of
the real nature of the Federal proposal. Our
city council not only refused to pass enabling
legislation for the building of the project
but it actually passed a resolution declaring
that the city of Marion would have nothing
to do with the proposal.
Armed with the power of eminent domain
the United States Housing Authority ten¬
tatively drove its stakes setting off an area
in the city of Marlon for the location of its
proposed housing project. The residents of
that area were given to understand that they
might at any moment be driven out of their
homes onto the streets to make room for
the project.
Opposition developed by the families in the
area against the proposed action of the United
States Housing Authority in trying to foist its
will upon them. On one of the streets within
the area selected for the location of the
project 65 percent of the families owned their
homes free of debt. I was personally ac¬
quainted with a great many of the families
living in that area, having attended many of
them at their bedsides in cases of Illness and
having assisted many of their mothers in
bringing their babies into the world. So far
as I could see, the moral character of the peo¬
ple living in that area compared favorably
with that of those living in any other area of
comparable size in the city. Some of the
houses they lived in were not of the most
desirable kind, but by no possible stretch of
the imagination could the area be considered
as a slum area or the families living in it as
slum dwellers.
Think of the people living in that section
picking up their daily newspaper one eve¬
ning and finding themselves referred to as
slum dwellers. Further, that a slum survey
for Marion filed with the State board showed
that social diseases of various forma were
found in that area, and that desirable tenants
had gradually withdrawn from there until a
low class of occupants had almost destroyed
the livability of the structures and that —
“Among the comments made in the intro¬
duction to the survey were that * * •
persons are living below decent levels in
regard to sanitation and moral environment.
• • • A low standard of living has been
continuing for many years • • • and
will, without a doubt, to the detriment of the
city and community in general unless action
Is taken.”
When the persons who were responsible for
that malicious attack were driven by a self-
respecting and righteously Indignant people
into an indefensible position, what do you
suppose they said? Exactly what was to be
expected : “We just followed instructions from
Washington.”
Not only were the people in the area af¬
fected opposed to the housing project but
also the citizens of the community in gen¬
eral. Mass meetings were held to pro¬
test against it. At the same time agents of
the United States Housing Authority were
working secretively to overcome the opposi¬
tion and propagandizing our people with
their stock in trade, namely, falsehoods and
deceptions.
Then the State housing board stepped into
the picture, at the instigation no doubt of
its creator, the United States Housing Au¬
thority. Using the high-handed and dicta¬
torial procedure that is natural to this Fed¬
eral-housing scheme, the State board ordered
a public hearing to be held at Columbus,
Ohio, for the purpose of determining
whether Marion should or should not have
a Federal housing project. Then the real
meaning of the word “authority” became ap¬
parent. Citizens of Marlon were to learn
that it was not up to them to determine
whether or not they should have a Federal
housing project. The State housing board
gave us to understand that it and not we
would decide that question.
A group of representative citizens of
Marion attended that hearing to protest
against the project. Another group, headed
by the local agent of the Home Owners’ Loan
Corporation, also attended and urged the
building of the project. The State housing
board was very partial to the group favoring
the project and extended to them every
courtesy and consideration. On the other
hand the board treated with contempt the
plea of those of us who were opposing the
housing proposal, heckled and cut us off time
and again.
Well, the long and short of it all was that
the United States Housing Authority did not
construct one of its projects in the city of
Marion, Ohio. Political calculations went
awry somewhere.
One of the deceptions that is deliberately
fostered by the public housing officials, is
that local housing authorities are independ¬
ent bodies, that they arise out of local de¬
mand, that they are primarily responsible
to the communities in which they are lo¬
cated, etc. The fact is that local housing
bodies are nothing but dummies of the
United States Housing Authority. The trust
indenture that secures the bonds sold to
local banks to raise what is erroneously called
the local contribution to the development
cost leaves no doubt as to who is boss over
the local housing project. The local housing
authority is by law not responsible to the
community in which it is located for any¬
thing pertaining to the project. In fact the
law of the State of Ohio, which is represen¬
tative of the other State laws relating to this
subject, provides that “the governing body,
chairman, and counsel of the housing au¬
thority shall perform the duties of the
municipal council, mayor, and solicitor fe-
spectlvely, • • • and the members of
the housing authority shall, and are hereby
authorized, to exercise and carry out mu¬
nicipal corporations by the laws providing
for such corporation proceedings.”
Further that “an authority created under
this act shall constitute a body corporate
and politic, • • • shall have the follow¬
ing powers in additional to others herein
specifically granted.”
In fact, the local housing authority ts a
municipality within a municipality and is
owned and controlled by the United States
Government as completely as the arsenals of
the Army and Navy.
These public housing projects are exempted
from taxation though their occupants receive
all the benefits of the schools, police and fire
departments, and other municipal facilities.
This, of course, throws an extra burden of
taxation upon the other citizens of the coun¬
try. Through some mysterious social bene¬
fit which we are told will flow out of the
housing projects taxpayers are supposed to be
repaid with compound interest.
But the capital deception of the Federal
housing program is the false impression
which its operators give out that the United
States Government lends money to local
communities to build these housing projects.
The United States Government does not lend
to the local community one red cent to pay
for the development cost of the housing proj¬
ects nor does the local community pay any
interest on their capital cost. All false propa¬
ganda to the contrary notwithstanding, the
Federal Government pays the full amount of
the capital cost of all housing projects con¬
structed under the United States Housing Act
of 1937. Although my analysis of the oper¬
ation of that act in 1939 exposed completely
the deception that the housing projects were
being financed by local communities, as
alleged by the public housing officials, they
nevertheless continue to propagate that de¬
ception. In that analysis I showed that the
annual Federal contributions were sufficient
to more than pay for the development costs
of the projects. The amortization tables of
George Holzman, which are regarded as stand¬
ard, were used for making the computations
upon which my statements were then made.
I shall be able this evening to show by the
use of those same tables, and figures supnlied
me very recently by the Federal Public Hous¬
ing Authority, that to be as true today as it
was then.
As of December 31. 1943, the Federal Public
Housing Authority had completed the con¬
struction of 557 housing projects at a total
cost of $752,409,000. This does not Include
the W. P. A. low-rent projects. Three hun¬
dred and thirty-seven of the projects are cur¬
rently operated as low-rent houses. Forty-
five low-rent projects have been transferred
to war housing. One hundred and seventy-
five war -housing projects have been built
under Public Act 671, the defense amend¬
ment to the United States Housing Act.
Annual Federal contributions will be
needed in the year 1944 on the 337 low-rent
projects and the 45 low-rent projects trans¬
ferred to war use. Although no contribu¬
tions have been needed to date on any of
the Public Act 671 projects two or three of
them may need contributions before the end
of the fiscal year 1944. The annual Federal
contributions that will be needed in the year
1944 on the 337 low-rent projects and the 45
low-rent projects transferred to war use aver¬
age 2.2 percent of their development cost.
The projects constructed under Public, No.
671 do not enter into my computations, but
only the so-called low-rent housing projects
constructed under the United States Hous¬
ing Act.
The immediate funds for the development
cost of the housing projects are derived from
two sources. The Federal Public Housing
Authority, through its dummy, that is, the
local housing authority, raises 33 percent of
the development cost by the sale of bonds to
banks and others in the local communities
where the projects are built. Those bonds
run over a period of 15 years and bear an
Interest rate of 2.08 percent.
The Federal Public Housing Authority fur¬
nishes the remaining 67 percent by the issu¬
ance of its own obligations and obtaining
the funds directly from the United States
Treasury. These funds are borrowed from
the Treasury for a period of 59 years. The
Federal Public Housing Authority makes the
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
May 12 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Downey to the bill (H. R.
4485) authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
viz: On page 21, after line 3, insert the following new
paragraph :
p The project for Earmington Reservoir on Littlejohn
2 Creek, enlargement of Hogan Reservoir on Calaveras River,
3 and related protection works is authorized substantially in
4 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
5 neers in House Document Numbered 545, Seventy-eighth
0 Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $3,868,200.
5-12-44 - A
$
1
w
(t
O
a>
1-^
o Kj
cr
(p
O
o
5
S' S
cr
<t> rD
« o
o
5- ^
Qj O
B
B
o
f-s
rs
fD
VJ
O
•-J
Oi
rD
o<
CO
4^
^ tr
c P
►(3 cr
o o
CO ^
CO ^
CO
h-b
O
P
rt“
<rt- ^ (TD
5' S 3
^ 'm ^
Hb K ^
o ' ^
CO
»-s
as
o
o
o
o
a
o
p
p
a.
Hb
o
>-3
P-
CO
*-i
p 4^
»4^
^ 00
CC N - '
cr p
o
o
N
5*
§ ^
as
I-S
o
a?
o
w
(t>
ca
o'
'<!
i-s
a* o
;? 2
>-i "
w
p
a
p-
O
o
!2;
H
K)
rt-
O
CP
n
z
D
PI
Z
H
00
K) W
° g
cmP
O
2!
O
a
>— 4
k. ^
CO
w
p
4:^
00
cn
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
May 12 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be projiGsed by Mr. Downey to the bill (H. E.
4485) antborizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other pur¬
poses, viz: On page 21, after line 2, insert the following
new paragraph:
1 The project for the Eolsom Eeservoir on the American
2 Eiver, California, is hereby authorized substantially in ac-
3 cordance with the plans contained in the report of the dis-
4 trict engineer, Sacramento, California, dated January 15,
5 1944, on file in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, with
6 such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secre-
7 tary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at
8 an estimated cost of $18,474,000.
5-12-44 - B
Mi
(Z>
CJ*
fP
M
to
O C:
O 'V
S CTQ
O S
§■ I'
« !
o
5‘
S’ o
Q, O
3
3
fD
•-S
rs
(P
P
3
&
(p
(p
Qi
o
M
cn
4^
4^
C
w
CP
72
^ 2
K s g-
Hh a> M ^
o ^ ct>
I— 1-^ 4^ ^
^ ^ QO O
g ^ ^ o
» re
re tr; ? C^
P re
G" ^
6 2
g"^
V* K-« '-’• 1^
^ H •
^ Crq M
^ re S
O <! 2 M
re re 2
J-S >-4
o “ ^ ?
p
n
z
D
W
z
H
CP
o
CP
00
H
^w
CO ^
O ^
V ^
XJl
ca
73
•
4:^
00
ca
78th congress
2d Session
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mat 19 (legislative day, Mat 9), 1944
Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered (o be printed
AMENDMENT
liiteiided to be proposed by Mr. Nye to the bill (H. K. 4485)
autlioriziiig- the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
VIZ :
1 On page 12, after line 11, insert the following new para-
2 graphs :
3 The project for the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne
4 River for flood control and other purposes in the Sheyenne
5 River Basin, North Dakota, is hereby authorized suhstantially
6 in accordance Avith the reconnneridations of the Ohief of
Kngineers in Senate Docinnent Numbered 11)3, Seventy-
8 eigth Congress, setanid session, at an estimated cost of
9 $810,000.
5-19-44 - B
o
1 The projects for tlie constru(;tion of one reservoir on the
2 Peinhina Rivei’ and one on tlie Tongue Elver for flood control
3 and other purposes in the Pemluna Elver Basin, North
•4 Dakota, are hereby authorized sul^stantiall}^ in accordance
5 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
(i Senate Document Numbered 194, Seventy-eighth Congress,
7 second session, at an estimated cost of $333,800.
8 The project for the construction of a reservoir on the
9 Soutli Branch of Park Elver for flood control and other
10 pui-poses in the Park Elver Basin, North Dakota, is hereby
11 autliorized sul)stantially in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
565, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
1 estimated cost of $358,610,
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THK SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mat 19 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed' by Mr. ISTye to tlie bill (H. R. 4485)
antliorizing the constriiction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
viz:
1 On page 12, after line 11, insert the following new para-
2 graphs :
3 The project for the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sbeyenne
4 River for flood control and other purposes in the Sheyenne
5 River Basin, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially
6 in accordance with the reconiinendations of the Chief of
Rugineers in Senate not'unieut Numbered 193, Seventy-
^ eigth r^nigress, secom] session, at an estimated cost ol
9 $810,000.
5-19-44 - B
2
1 The projects for the construction of one reservoir on the
2 Pemhina River and one on the Tongue River for flood control
3 and other purposes in the Pemhina River Basin, ^^orth
4 Dakota, are hereby authorized su))stantially in accordance
5 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
G Senate Document Xum1)ered 194, Seventy-eighth Congress,
7 second session, at an estimated cost of $333,800.
8 The project for the construction of a reservoir on the
9 South Branch of Park River for flood control and other
10 purposes in the Park River Basin, Xorth Dakota, is hereby
1 1 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
1- tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Xumbered
565, Seventy-eigbtb Congress, 'second session, at an
estimated cost of $358,610,
a-
S'
a
o
o
o
D
o
p
9;:
>
Hi
P
P
o
a
2
Pb
o
^ cr
o o
-x
fD CO
• >-b
O
o
^ w
§
as
o
o
a-
o
o
p
a.
p
^ •
a
a
a
o
pr N
ai I-
<T
rt
CL
O'
a
p
a o
2 Qf=5
o
75
a
CL
cr
v;
. Hb
O
a
o
a
as
a
CO
a
o
a
p: CO
CL ^
ca R
?? 2
n
z
0
H
a
cr
m
z
H
to B
a ^
M
09
n:
>▻>
00
cn
v*>'
y
Y8th CONGKESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 29 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Butler to the bill (H. K.
4485) authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other pur¬
poses, viz: On page 27, between lines 4 and 5, insert
the following:
1 Elkborn Biver and its tri])ntaries, Nebraska.
5-29-44 - B
w
'I'
Mi
M
cr to
O
3
O' ^
a> (t>
^ o
o* o
S' O ^
a o
s
3
05
n>
(t>
P M
D o
CL 4-
O
CL
a>
(V
CL
t=^ -
C P o
-S :3
cr
9 o
(T^ cr
P-
(X>
o
(t> 75
o
t-b 't'
O
®o
td cr
• ®
p
St |3
O
o ^
cr
P
o
Pt
P
o
»
o
r-^-
P^
(Tf-
5i
O
h-
o
d
P •
t-w
cs
p*
75
p
crq
p
O
r->“
P-J
P
>-b
•-S
H- •
<V
o
<-
O
ro
j-s
o
p
O
75
75
rt-
«r^
P
HJ
cS
»-;
P
pL
P
O
1
00 o
^ o
w
a>
td
n
2
D
n
2
H
1
00
tow
mQ
s§
cc
1
x
00
ca
I
I
I
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 5 (legislative day, May 9), 1944
Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed
AMENDMENTS
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Wallgeen to the bill (H. H,
4485) authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes, viz:
1 On page 1, line 10, delete the word ‘‘and”.
2 On page 2, line 4, insert the following: “and Federal
3 investigations to insure the preservation and protection of
4 fisher}^ resources and to develop other biological uses of the
5 waters shall be prosecuted by the Fish and Wildlife Service
6 under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior in ac-
'7 cordance with the tR’ovisions of the Act of March 10, 1934
8 (48 Stat. 401; 16 U. S. C., sec. 663) .”
9 On ])age 3, line 10, after the period insert the following:
6-5-14 - U
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
‘'In the construction of dams or other works authorized by
this Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of
the Interior shall be consulted for the purpose of insuring
that the projects incorporate due and adecpiate provisions for
the protection of migratory and resident fish populations;
and that otherwise the greatest biological use is made of such
waters in accordance with the provisions of the Act of March
10, 1934 (48 Stat. 401; 16 U. S. C., sec. 663) . To achieve
these objectives the Fish and Wildlife Service is directed to
conduct in advance of the beginning of the actual construc¬
tion, such surveys and investigations as may be necessary,
the cost thereof to constitute a part of the cost of the con¬
struction project; and it is hereby directed that the Secretaiy
of War transfer to the Department of the Interior for the
use of the Fish and Wildlife Service, out of any appropria¬
tions hereafter made for the purpose of cariying out the pro¬
visions of the Act or any part thereof, such funds as may he
necessary for the conduct of biological surveys and investi¬
gations. The reports and recommendations submitted by the
Secretary of the Interior resulting from the surveys and
investigations of the Fish and Wildlife Service shall consti¬
tute a part of any and all engineering survey reports and
recommendations submitted to the Congress or to any com¬
mittee thereof by the Secretary of War.”
1
P-
cr
55
K
n
o ^
B
o B g
O' p: n:
(D ^
•-sop.
5* P p
T O "
p- 2 ^
2 >
S ^
o
c> ^
(t> -
P
p
P-
CO
4*
4^
P-
»-S
fZ>
P*
^ C/2
p ?
p
S-
£3 h-*
^ O
o" P
S o
c/2 H+s
^ O
O C>
t-S >-5
32 p
o 3'
o
P^ h-
o {P
§ IP-
o
o >
I—* ^5
p
p 5?r
p-
Hb
o
p
ri“
(O
CD
O"*
M ^
i-i
O
^ O
c»
w A .
c"
OQ
5‘
3
3
O
s ^
>
n
z
a
§
PI
z
H
w
CO
O!^
H
o
2;
o
ta
K
1/1
a:
JO
4^
00
Ui
I
Calendar No. 1047
78th Congress )
SENATE
f Report
2d /Session f
1 No. 1030
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC
k WORKS ON RIVERS AND HARBORS FOR FLOOD CON-
P TROL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
June 22 (legislative day, May 9), 1944. — Ordered to be printed
Mr. Overton, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the-
following
EEPORT
[To accompany H. R. 4485]
The Committee on Commerce, . to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 4485) authorizing the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments,
with the recommendation that the bdl, as amended, do pass.
AMENDMENT NO. 1
On page 1, after line 2, insert a new section as follows:
It is the purpose of this Act to establish a definite policy of making use of
existing Federal agencies for the construction, operation, and maintenance of all
public improvements in connection with navigation, flood control, and allied
activities; to insure coordinated operation of all Federal projects therein for the
improvement of navigation and alleviation of flood conditions; to provide for
realization of other benefits to be derived from such projects; to facilitate prepara¬
tions and planning for post-war construction by the Federal Government in the
interest of employment; and to secure efficient executive management under the
direction and supervision of the permanent executive agencies already established
by Act of Congress.
The committee is of the opinion that the best interest of the country
as a whole will be served by fully utiHzing existing Federal agencies in
the planning, construction, maintenance, and operation of all im¬
provements for the development of the Nation’s water resources. The
established Federal agencies have highly trained personnel that are
specialists in their respective fields. The chiefs of the principal
bureaus and commissions directly responsible for the preparation of
plans and for the administration of the national program for the
development of the water resources of the country have entered into
An agreement to insure cooperation on multiple-purpose projects.
2
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Under the terms of that agreement, conferences are held in Washington
at least once each calendar month for the purpose of discussing the
results of studies and investigations, adjusting differences of opinion,
and promoting ways and means for implementing the agreement.
The committee believes that the most effective means of insuring
efficient executive management and a uniform administration of the
national policies enunciated by Congress with respect to navigation,
flood controlj irrigation, development of hydroelectric power, water-
flow retardation, and soil-erosion prevention is through the utilization
of the permanent executive agencies already established by acts of /
Congress for the administration of these programs and it recommends v
adoption of the amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 2
On page 2, line 23, after the word “operate”, insert the word
“public”.
Amendment 2 specifies that the authority of the Secretary of War
to construct, operate, and maintain park and recreational facilities
applies only to facilities for public use.
AMENDMENT NO. 3
On page 3, line 2, strike out the word “structures” and insert the
words “including structures”.
AMENDMENT NO. 4
, /
On page 3, line 2, after the word “facilities”, insert the word
“thereon,”. ,
Amendments 3 and 4 limit 'the authority of the Secretary of War
with respect to reservoir areas to granting leases on lands only of the
h"ederal Government and does not extend the authority to the granting
of leases covering the water surface of such reservoirs.
It is intended that the waters of the reservoirs shall be devoted to
public use free of charge for the purposes of boating. Ashing, swim¬
ming, and other recreational activities.
AMENDMENT NO. 5
On page 3 strike out all of lines 4, 5, 6, 7, and on line 8 through the j
word “interest”, and insert the following: '
That preference shall be given to Federal, State, or local governmental agencies,
and licenses may be granted, without monetary consideration, to such agencies for
the use of areas suitable for public park and recreational purposes, when the i
Secretary of War determines such action to be in the public interest. The water
areas of all such reservoirs shall be open to public use generally without charge for
boating, swimming, bathing, fishing, and other recreational purposes, and ready
access to and exit from such water areas along the shores of such reservoirs shall i
be maintained for general public use, when such use is determined by the Secretary
of War not to be contrary to the public interest, all under such rules_and regula¬
tions as the Secretary of War may deem necessary.
Amendment 5 provides that preference in the granting of licenses for '
the use of areas suitable for public park and recreational purposes shall ii
be given to Federal, State, and local governmental agencies.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 3
AMENDMENT NO. 6
On page 3, after line 10, insert a new section as follows:
I Electric power and energy generated at reservoir projects under the control of
I the War Department and in the opinion of the Secretary of War not requiredjin
‘ the operation of such projects shall be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior,
who shall transmit and dispose of such power and energy in such manner as to
\ encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers
I consistent with sound business principles, the rate schedules to become effective
I upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission. Preference
in the sale of such power and energy shall be given to public bodies and coopera-
, tives. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct and acquire only
such transmission lines and related facilities as may be necessary in order to make
the power and energy generated at said projects available in wholesale quantities
for sale on fair aird reasonable terms and conditions to facilities owned by the
Federal Government, public bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned companies.
[ Amendment 6 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of
(electric power generated at reservoir projects under the control of the
War Department.
Existing authority for flood-control projects and the authority con¬
i’ templated in H. R. 4485 provides for a number of multiple-purpose
I dam and reservoir projects where large blocks of hydroelectric power
I will be produced but there is at the present time no general law
' governing the sale and distribution of power generated at projects
i under the control of the 'l\''ar Department. In order to attain the
I greatest benefit to the general public from this hydroelectric power,
; the time has come to place by law the responsibility for disposal of
\ such power in an existing Federal agency. In the Bonneville Power
i Administration Act and the Fort Peck Power Administration Act,
\ Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of the
L power generated at the Bonneville and Fort Peck projects. More
recently, under Executive Order No. 9366, the Secretary of the
Interior has been made responsible for the disposal of power from the
Denison and Norfork projects.
The committee has heard testimony from the Secretary of the
Interior and from the Director of the Division of Power of the Depart¬
ment of the Interior on this subject. The latter official has informed
the committee that the provisions of amendment No. 6 contain
sufficient authority and latitude for efficient admirdstration and will
satisfactorily enable the Department of the Interior to carry out the
intent of the amendment. The committee desires an amendment
which provides a convenient and practical method of disposing of
power at projects under the control of the War Department without
setting up a public power trust which would be unduly competitive
with established private power utilities. The committee, therefore,
has inserted a proviso wliich authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to construct and acquire only such transmission lines or related
facilities as may be necessary in order to make the power and energy
generated at such projects available in wholesale quantities for sale
on fair and reasonable terms and conditions to facilities owned by the
Federal Government, public bodies, cooperatives, and privately
owned companies. The committee recognizes the desirability of
granting preferences in the sale of such power and energy to public
bodies and cooperatives when the power is generated at projects
financed by the Federal Government.
\
4
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
AMENDMENT NO. 7
On page 3, line 16, change the period after “Department” to a
colon and add the following:
Provided, That no sale of such water shall adversely affect then existing lawful
uses of such water.
In connection with the sale for domestic and industrial use of sur¬
plus water available at any reservoir under the control of the War
Department, the committee believes that existing lawful uses of water
should be protected.
AMENDMENT NO. 8
On page 3, hne 15, strike out the word “available” and insei’t in lieu
thereof “allocated”.
AMENDMENT NO. 9
On page 3, line 18, change the period to a colon and insert the fol¬
lowing:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority
except in case of danger from floods.
AMENDMENT NO. 10
On page 3 strike out line 25 and on page 4 strike out the first 10
lines and line 11 through the word “receipts” and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
Hereafter, whenever the Secretary of War determines, upon recommendation
by the Secretary of the Interior that any dam and reservoir project operated
under the direction of the Secretary of War maj be utilized for irrigation purposes,
the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain,
under the provisions of the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1(02, 32
Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto), such addi¬
tional works in connection therewith as he may deem necessary for irrigation
purposes. Such irrigation works may be undertaken only after a report and
findings thereon have been by the Secretary of the Interior as provided in said
Federal reclamation laws and after subseouent specific authorization of the
Congress by an authorization Act; and, within the limits of the water users’
repayment ability such report may be predicated on the allocation to irrigation
of an appropriate portion of the cost of structures and facilities used for irrigation
and other purposes. Dams and reservoirs operated under the direction of the
Secretary of V ar may be utilized hereafter for irrigation purposes only in con¬
formity with the provisions of this section, but the foregoing requirement shall not
prejudice lawful uses now existing:
During the hearings and also by letter the Secretary of the Interior
expressed to the committee his views with regard to the utilization of
multiple purpose projects imder the control of the the War Depart¬
ment where irrigation may be involved and he expressed the view
that the language in H. R. 4485, if modified, would provide for more
effective administration in relation to the various technical features
of the Federal reclamation laws. The committee therefore recom¬
mends the adoption of amendment No. 10 which is generally in accord
with existing law and the expressed views of the Secretary of the
Interior.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 5
AMENDMENT NO. 11
On page 5, after line 15, insert the following:
LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN
Modifications of the existing Waterbury, Wrightsville, and East Barre Dams
in the Winooski River Basin, Vermont, are hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 629, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $2,120,000.
BLACKSTONE RIVER BASIN
The project for the West Hill Reservoir on the West River, Mass., for flood
control and other purposes in the Blackstone River Basin is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 624, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $1,070,000.
The project on Blackstone River for local flood protection at Worcester, Mass.,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 624, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $2,232,000.
The project on Blackstone River for local flood protection at Woonsocket,
R. I., is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 624, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $803,000.
The project on Seekonk River, for local flood protection at Pawtucket, R. I.,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 624, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $82,000.
Amendment 11 authorizes modification of three existing flood-
control dams on tributaries of the Winooski River, and construction of
flood-control projects in the Blackstone River Basin.
WINOOSKI RIVER, VT.
(H. Doc. No. 629, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Winooski River rises in the northeast section of Washington
County, Vt., and flows generally westerly for a distance of about 90
miles to Lake Champlain. Under an emergency relief proj ect author¬
ized on June 2, 1933, by the Director of Emergency Conservation
Work, the Civilian Conservation Corps, working under the engineering
supervision of the Chief of Engineers constructed certain flood-control
works within the Winooski River watershed. This work included
the construction of Wrightsville Dam on the North Branch, the East
Barre Dam on the Jail Branch, and the Waterbury Dam on the
Waterbury River.
Subsequent to the construction of those dams, much more compre¬
hensive meteorological and hydrological data have been developed
and computations based on these data now indicate that by a com¬
bination of certain conditions, nature could produce a flood of such
magnitude in the W^inooski watershed that the dams could be over¬
topped and destroyed.
The plan of improvement provides for the modification of the
Waterbury, Wrightsville and East Barre Dams to provide adequate
spillway capacity for present design floods at an estimated cost to the
United States of $2,120,000.
The committee finds that the proposed modifications are necessaiy
to insure the safety of the structures and to protect the lives and
security of the people in the valley below, and recommends the
modifications of these structures.
6 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
BLACKSTONE RIVER, MASS., AND R. I.
(H. Doc. No. 624, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Blackstone Kiver is formed by the confluence of Mill Brook
and the Middle River at Worcester, Mass., and flows about 49 miles
in a southeasterly direction to Narragansett Bay. The tidal section
of the Blackstone River, below Main Street in Pawtucket, R. I., is
generally referred to as the Seekonlc River. The Blackstone River
drains an area of 540 square miles, of which 382 are in Massachusetts
and 158 are in Rhode Island.
Floods on Blackstone River are frequently accompanied by failures
of existing dams that intensify flood conditions in many localities in
the basin. The major flood losses are the result of inundation of
business and industrial districts in municipalities; failure of storage
and power dams; interruption of highway and railroad traffic; and
suspension of power, water supply, sewage disposal and telephone
facilities.
The recommended plan for flood control provides for (a) the con¬
struction of the West Hill Reservoir, at an estimated cost to the United
States of $1,070,000, with provisions for increasing the gross capacity
to provide conservation storage in the amount desired by the State of
Massachusetts or other local interests, provided that the estimated
increased cost of the enlarged reservoir be contributed by the State or
other local interests; (b) construction of a diversion conduit and
channel from Kettle Brook to the Blackstone River bypassing the
city of Worcester, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$2,232,000; (c) channel improvement at Woonsocket, at an estimated
cost to the United States of $803,000; and (d) construction of a flood
wall at Pawtucket, R. I., for the protection of the city hall and adja¬
cent area, at an estimated cost to the United States of $82,000.
The committee finds that the economic benefits of the projects
amply justify the cost and recommends that the works be constructed
in accordance with the plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers.
AMENDMENT NO. 12
On page 5, line 24, change the period to a colon and insert the
following:
Provided further, That none of the dams herein authorized for the Connecticut
River Basin shall be utilized for the generation of hydroelectric power.
The committee does not favor the expenditure of large sums of
money at dams in the Connecticut River Basin looking toward the
future development of hydroelectric power at those projects in face
of local objections and without full reports and hearings thereon and
subsequent specific authorization therefor by Congress. Accordingly,
the committee recommends the approval of amendment No. 12, which
prohibits the generation of hydroelectric power at authorized fiood-
control dams in the Connecticut River Basin.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 7
AMENDMENT NO. 13
On page 7, after line 19, insert the following:
ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
The general plan for the comprehensive development of the Roanoke River
Basin for flood control and other purposes recommended by the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 650, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, is
approved and the construction of the Buggs Island Reservoir on the Roanoke
River in Virginia and North Carolina, and the Philpott Reservoir on the Smith
. River in Virginia, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in that report at an estimated cost of
$36,140,000.
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
The general plan for the comprehensive development of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin for flood control and other purposes recommended by the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 652, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, is approved and the construction of the Wilkesboro Reservoir on the Yad¬
kin-Pee Dee River in North Carolina is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in that report at an
estimated cost of $10,840,000.
EDISTO RIVER BASIN
The project for local flood control on Edisto River, S. C., is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in Senate Document Numbered 182, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $139,000.
SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN
The general plan for the comprehensive development of the Savannah River
Basin for flood control and other purposes recommended by the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 657, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, is
approved and the construction of the Clark Hill Reservoir on the Savannah River
I in South Carolina and Georgia is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in that report at an estimated
cost of $35,300,000.
Amendment 13 authorizes improvements for flood control and other
purposes in the Roanoke, Yadkin-Pee Dee, Edisto, and Savannah
River Basins.
ROANOKE RIVER, VA. AND N. C.
(H. Doc. No. 650, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Roanoke River rises on the eastern slope of the Appalachian
Mountains in south-central Virginia, flows 410 miles in a general
southeasterly direction and empties into Albemarle Sound, 7 miles
northeasterly from Plymouth, N. C. The drainage basis contains
9,580 square miles, of which 6,610 are in Virginia and 3,420 in North
Carolina. Section 7 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936,
authorized the Secretary of War to continue surveys, studies, and
reports at certain specific localities, including the Roanoke River
Basin, where, according to the surveys and estimates previously
made, opportunities appear to exist for useful flood-control operations
with economical development of hydroelectric power whenever
sufficient markets to absorb such power become available. The
authorization recommended in this amendment is based on the
report of the Chief of Engineers submitted pux’suant to the 1936 act.
8 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
The report presents a step-by-step comprehensive plan ‘ which
would provide for the full utilization of the water resources of the
Roanoke River Basin. The plan consists of the construction of 11
multiple-purpose projects for flood control, power development and
other purposes, at an estimated cost of $124,000,000 for construction.
Due to the flood protection that would be secured and the immediate
requirements for additional power-generating capacity, the Buggs
Island and Philpott projects on the Roanoke and Smith Rivers,
respectively, are recommended for authorization and construction as
the initial step in the development of the comprehensive plan, at an j
estimated cost of $36,140,000.
The committee notes that the Buggs Island project (initial develop¬
ment) will produce 278,000,000 kilowatt-hours of prime and 153,000,-
000 of secondary energy per year and that the Pliilpott project
(initial development) will produce 22,400,000 kilowatt-hours of prime
and 1,200,000 of secondary energy per year, that over 90 percent of
the flood losses to the two main flood-damage areas in the Roanoke
River Basin will be eliminated, and that the expected benefits exceed
the average annual charges by about 30 percent. The committee
recommends approval of the comprehensive plan and authorization
for construction of the Buggs Island and Philpott Reservoirs in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers. '
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER, N. C. AND S. C. j
(H. Doc. No. 652, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Yadkin River rises on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains of western North Carolina, flows northeasterly, easterly,
and southeasterly about 202 miles to the mouth of the Uliarie River
near Badin, N. C., where it changes its name to Pee Dee or Great
Pee Dee River, thence it continues southeasterly about 253 miles to
enter the Atlantic Ocean through Winyah Bay near Georgetown,
S. C. It drains an area of 16,340 square miles in the coastal plain.
Piedmont Plateau, and the mountain region. Section 7 of the Flood
Control Act approved June 22, 1936, authorized the Secretary of
War to continue surveys, studies, and reports at certain speciflc
localities, including the Rocky River (Loves Ford and Crumps Ford),
N. C., and at Wilkesboro Dam, Yadkin River, N. C., where, according
to the surveys and estimates previously made, opportunities appear
to exist for useful flood-control operations with economical develop¬
ment of hydro-electric power whenever sufficient markets to absorb
such power become available. The authorization recommended in '
this amendment is based on the report of the Chief of Engineers
submitted pursuant to the 1936 act.
The report presents a comprehensive plan for the step-by-step '
development of the basin which would provide for the optimum ,
development of the potentialities of the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin. The '
plan consists of the construction of multiple-]nirpose reservoirs at i
Wilkesboro, Tuckertown, Junction, IVIorven, Greater Blewett, and j
Crumps Ford for flood control, power development, and other pur- \
poses, at an estimated cost of $105,840,000 for construction. Due to j
the flood protection that would be secured, the Wilkesboro project is '
recommended for authorization and construction as the initial step j
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 9
in the development of the comprehensive plan at an estimated cost
of $10,840,000.
The committee notes that the Wilkesboro project as an initial
development will produce 32,600,000 kilowatt-hours of primary and
1,700,000 of secondary energy per year and that the annual charges
estimated at $499,000 are substantially less than the annual benefits
estimated at $604,000. The committee recommends approval of the
comprehensive plan and authorization for construction of the Wilkes¬
boro Dam and Reservoir, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers.
EDISTO RIVER, S. C.
(S. Doc. No. 182, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Edisto River, formed by the junction of its north and south
forks in southern South Carolina, flows southeasterly 118 miles to the
Atlantic Ocean, 30 miles southwest of Charleston. It drains an
area of 2,983 square miles in the coastal plain region.
The Edisto River Basin is subject to frequent overflow and because
of the flat slopes throughout the watershed and the inadequate
channel capacities, the main stream and its tributaries remain at high
stages for long periods.
*The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for channel and bank clearing along 43 miles of Edisto River
and its north and south forks, at an estimated first cost of $139,000.
The committee concurs in the studies made by the Chief of Engineers
and recommends that the project be adopted in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.
SAVANNAH RIVER, S. C. AND GA.
(H. Doc. No. 657, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Savaimah River is formed by the junction of Tugaloo and
Seneca Rivers on the boundary line between Georgia and South Caro¬
lina, and flows easterly along the boundary for 313.7 miles to the
Atlantic Ocean. It drains an area of 10,579 square miles, of which
359 are in North Carolina, 4,282 in South Carolina, and 5,938 in
Georgia. Section 7 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936,
authorized the Secretary of War, to continue surveys, studies, and
reports at certain specific localities, including Clark Hill Reservoir,
Ga., where, according to the surveys and estimates already made,
opportunities appear to exist for usable flood-control operation with .
economical development of hydroelectric power whenever sufficient
markets to absorb such power become available. The authorization
recommended in this amendment is based on the report submitted by
the Chief of Engineers pursuant to the 1936 act.
The report presents a comprehensive plan for the step-by-step de¬
velopment to provide for the optimum development of the potentiali¬
ties of the Savannah River Basin. The plan consists of the construc¬
tion of multiple-purpose reservoirs at Clark Hill, Hartwell, Goat Is¬
land, Middleton Shoals, four projects operated conjointly on the
Chattooga River, Tallow Hill, Anthony Shoals, and Newry-Old
Pickens for flood control, power development and other purposes, at
an estimated cost of $140,400,000 for construction as the initial step
1 0 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
in the development of the comprehensive plan, at an estimated cost
of $35,300,000 for construction.
The committee notes that the Clark Hill project as an initial
development will produce 474,100,000 kilowatt-hours of primary and
231,200,000 kilowatt-hours of secondary energy annually, and that
the project develops a favorable ratio of costs to benefits of 1 to 2.26.
The committee recommends approval of the comprehensive plan and
authorization for construction of the Clark Hill project, in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.
AMENDMENT NO. 14 ^
On page 9, after line 13, inseit the following;
The project on Red River in the vicinity of Shreveport, Louisiana, for flood
control and bank protection is hereby authorized, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numtiered
627, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $3,000,000,
except that, in view of the large expenditure already made by local interests, they
shall not be required to contribute to the construction cost.
The project for the Blakely Mountain Dam on the Ouachita River, for flood
control and other purposes in the Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 647, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $11,080,000. ^
Amendment 14 authorizes projects for flood-control and other pur¬
poses along the Red River in the vicinity of Slu’eveport and on the
Ouachita River at the Blakely Mountain site.
BED RIVER, VICINITY OF SHREVEPORT, LA.
(H. Doc. No. 627, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The section of Red River in the vicinity of Slireveport, La., con- |
sidered in this report, extends from mile 315, above Twelve Mile
Bayou Bend, downstream to Eagle Bend at mUe 295. Shreveport,
La., occupies the west bank of the river beLyeen miles 305 and 308
and Bo.ssier City, and the east bank from mde 305 to mile 309. Up¬
stream from the lower limits of Shreveport, the river channel consists
of three bends and its bed and banks are composed of readily erodible
alluvium.
The Red River at Shreveport is subject to floods which result prin¬
cipally from the run-off from general storms. Bank caving is a
serious problem. Local interests have expended approximately
$2,120,000 between 1908 and 1941 for bank protection, set-back
levees, and railroad and highway relocations made necessary by the
caving banks.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the control of bank caving by restoration, enlargement,
extension or replacement of the existing protective works at critical
areas along both banks of the river in the vicinity of Shreveport, at
an estimated cost of $3,000,000 for construction, of which $1,500,000 ^
would be chargeable to the United States. !
The importance of the bank-erosion problem in this area is evidenced 1
by the large expenditures heretofore made by local interests for con¬
trol works. The committee finds that the proposed improvements ^
are economically justified. In view of the large expenditure already )
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 11
made by local interests, it is of the opinion that local interests should
be relieved of the requirement to contribute $1,500,000 toward the
cost of the improvement. The committee, therefore, recommends
that the project be adopted substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers except that local interests
shall not be required to contribute to the construction cost. Local
interests are required to provide the necessary land and meet other
requirements of local cooperation.
Ouachita River — Blakely Mountain Dam
(H. Doc. No. 647, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Ouachita River rises in Polk County, Ark., and flows 605
miles in a southeasterly direction across the southwestern corner of
Arkansas and the northeastern corner of Louisiana and empties into
Red River 35 miles above its mouth. It drains an area of 24,280
square miles, of which 1,105 square miles of mountainous terrain are
located above the Blakely Mountain Dam site.
Six damaging floods occurred in the Ouachita River Basin between
1927 and 1940. The flood of 1927 caused damage estimated at
$1,260,000.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the
Blakely Mountain site for flood control and power production, by
means of an earth-rock fill dam at mile 490, with an initial power
installation of 38,000 kilowatts. The dam woifld create a reservoir
of 1,915,000 acre-feet capacity, of which 525,000 acre-feet of storage
would be reserved for flood control. '
The committee notes that the annual tangible benefits from flood
control along the Ouachita River between Remmel Dam and the
mouth of the Little Missouri River, resulting from the construction
of the Blakely Mountain Dam, are estimated at $129,900. The
committee finds that the mifltiple-purpose development has a favor¬
able ratio of cost to benefits of 1 to 1.49 and recommends adoption of
the project.
AMENDMENT NO. 15
On page 10, line 25, change the period after “Basin” to a comma
and add the following:
including the project for the Red Rock Dam on the Des Moines River for flood
control and other purposes, substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 651, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $15,000,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 16
On page 11, after line 7, insert the following:
The project on the Des Moines River for local flood protection at Des Moines,
Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 651, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $270,000.
12 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Amendments 15 and 16 authorize projects on the Des Moines
River.
DES MOINES RIVER, IOWA AND MINN,
(H. Doc. No. 651, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Des Moines River rises in southwestern Minnesota, flows
soutlieasterly across the State of Iowa, and empties into the Missis¬
sippi River at Keokuk. It drains an area of 14,540 square miles of
flat and rolling plains. Des Moines with a population of 160,000 is
the largest city.
Damaging floods may be expected with an average frequency of
more than once a year in the lower reaches of Des Moines River and
about once every year and a half in the upper basin.
The plan of improvement provides for: (a) The construction of a
multiple-purpose reservoir at the Red Rock site for flood-control
power and other purposes, with 800,000 acre-feet of storage for flood
control, 190,000 acre-feet of storage for the development of power,
and 210,000 acre-feet of dead storage to create power head and afford
a pool for boating and other recreational uses and to provide conser¬
vation benefits; and (6) the enlargement and provision of levees and
related works at the city of Des Moines. The estimated costs are
$15,000,000 for the reservoir, and $270,000 for the local protection
works.
The committee concurs in the views of the Chief of Engineers and
recommends the authorization of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the
Red Rock site on the Des Moines River and local protection worlds
for Des Moines.
AMENDMENT NO. 17
On page 11, line 18, strike out “$418,000” and insert “$300,000.”
Amendment 17 is a clarifying amendment with respect to the
Galena River project.
The report of the Chief of Engineers on the Galena River, Ill. and
Wis., published in House Document No. 336, Seventy-seventh Con¬
gress, second session, recomm ends the construction of local protection
works at an estimated cost of $418,000 for construction, subject to
certain conditions of local cooperation, including a cash contribution
of $118,000, toward the first cost of construction.
Since the amounts shown in the bill consistently represent the esti¬
mated Federal cost of the various projects, as shown in the documents
referred to and inasmuch as the amendment adopted by the House
did not remove the requirements of local cooperation, the committee,
in order to avoid an interpretation that any of the conditions of
local cooperation for that project have been waived, considers it advis¬
able that the bill cite the estimated Federal cost as shown in House
Document No. 336, Seventy -seventh Congress, first session.
AMENDMENT NO. 18
On page 12, after fine 11, insert the following:
The project for the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne River for flood control
and other purposes in the Sheyenne River Basin, North Dakota, is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 13
Engineers in Senate Document Numbered 193, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $810,000.
The projects for the construction of one reservoir on the Pembina River' and
one on the Tongue River for flood control and other purposes in the Pembina
River Basin, North Dakota, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 565, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$333,800.
The project for the construction of a reservoir on the South Branch of Park
River for flood control and other purposes in the Park River Basin, North Dakota,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Numbered 194, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $358,610.
Amendment 18 authorizes projects on the Sheyenne, Pembina, and
Park Kivers in the drainage basin of the Red River of the North.
SHEYENNE RIVER, N. DAK.
(S. Doc. No. 193, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Sheyenne River rises in central North Dakota and flows 500
miles generally southeast to enter the Red River about 10 miles north
of Fargo, N. Dak. The drainage area of 7,320 square miles is char¬
acterized by rolling drift prairie lands in the headwaters section, irreg¬
ular and hilly delta land in the intermediate section, and the flat Red
River Valley plain in the lower 70 miles.
Floods in Sheyenne River are usually the result of snow melt followed
by warm spring rains. The Chief of Engineers finds that the con¬
struction of works solely to prevent flood damages in the basin of the
Sheyenne River is not economically justified. However, he finds it
practicable by means of reservoir storage, to provide a substantial
degree of flood control and to increase the low-water flow of the stream
with resultant large water supply and pollution-abatement benefits.
The plan of improvement provides for the construction of the Bald
Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne River for flood control and water con¬
servation and the construction of a low concrete diversion dam in
Sheyenne River 35 miles above the mouth and of a short ditch leading
thence to the existing Stanley ditch to permit part of the regulated
flow to be used for water supply and pollution abatement in Red River
of the North at Fargo. Because of the large water-supply benefits to
the city of Fargo, N. Dak., the War Department proposes that local
interests bear the cost of the Fargo diversion dam and ditch and con¬
tribute $208,000 toward the first cost of the reservoir, and bear the
expense of all the necessary alterations of utilities, roads, highways,
and bridges. The estimated cost of the project is $1,341,300, of which
$810,000 is allocated to the Federal Government and $531,300 to local
interests.
As the Bald Hill Reservoir would provide complete protection from
floods of record for the section of the river between the dam and the
flood plain of the Red River of the North and since the general benefits
resulting from increasing the low flow of the river would be consider¬
able, the committee recommends adoption of the project.
14 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
PEMBINA EIVEHjN. DAK.
(H. Doc. No. 565, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Pembina River has its origin in the Turtle Mountains and the
Drift Prairie of southern Manitoba and flows 275 miles southeasterly
and easterly to join the Red River of the North in northeastern North
Dakota. It drains an area of 3,619 sqtiare miles, of wliich 1^947 are
in Canada and 1,672 in the United States. The Tongue River, its
principal tributary, drains an area in North Dakota south of the
Pembina River.
Floods on the Pembina and Tongue Rivers occur nearly annually
in the spring from melting snow and occasionally in the summer from
heavy rainfall but generally are not of sufficient magnitude to cause
serious damage. The areas subject to inundation are principally
flat farm lands with poor drainage. They remain saturated for long
periods which delays planting, reduces crop yields, and destroys
ci;ops. Local interests are particularly concerned about the serious
depletion of the supply of water during the drought year following
1930 and have pointed out that the past floods, the expectancy of
future floods, and the danger of a water famine constitute a serious
menace to the well-being and prosperity of the various communities
along the river.
The Chief of Engineers finds that the average annual flood damages
in the Pembina River Basin are too small to warrant the construction
of improvements solely for flood protection, and that the best plan
of improvement would be the construction of storage reservmirs for
the dual purpose of reducing flood flows and increasing low-water
flows in the lower reaches of the stream. The plan of improvement
provides for the construction of a reservoir on the Pembina River
1 mile downstream from the confluence of Pembina and Little Pembina
Rivers and the construction of a reservoir on the Tongue River near
Akra, at an estimated cost of $333,800.
The over-all benefits for the reservoirs on. the Pembina and Tongue
Rivers exceed the annual charges. The committee has reviewed the
benefits resulting from these improvements and is of the opinion
that the allocation of costs proposed by the Chief of Engineers between
local interests and the United States is a fair and reasonable distribu¬
tion, that the benefits of a general nature justify the participation
by the United States in the amounts proposed. It recommends that
the projects on the Tongue and Pembina Rivers be adopted in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.
PARK RIVER, N. DAK.
(S. Doc. No. 194, 78th Cong., 2d Sess.)
The Park River, a small tributary of the Red River of the North,
drains an area of 1,010 square miles in northeastern North Dakota..
Its headwater streams. South, Middle, and North Branches, rise in
the Drift Prairie in Southeastern Cavalier County, and flow in an
easterly direction to an almost common confluence near Grafton,
forming the main stream which flows easterl}^ 35 miles to the Red
River of the North, 36 miles south of the international boundary.
Floods occur nearly annually in the Park River Basin from melting
snows, but generally are not of sufficient magnitude to cause damage.
The area subject to inundation amounts to about 13,000 acres and
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 15
lies principally along the South Branch from 3 to 9 miles west of
Grafton. The areas inundated are poorly drained lands which remain
saturated for long periods which delays planting and reduces crop
yields.
The Chief of Engineers finds that serious water problems concerning
both quality and quantity are present in the Park River Basin, and
that the construction of a reservoir on South Branch is desirable and
economically justified. The plan of iinjirovement proposes the con¬
struction of a reservoir on the South Branch for the dual purpose of
flood control and water conservation, at an estimated cost of $358,610.
Water conservation is generally a matter of community or local
enterprise in which the Federal Government does not participate. In
this case, however, the causes of the prevailing water shortages are
beyond the control of the people affected and general public health
and welfare justify Federal participation in the cost. The com¬
mittee has analyzed the nature of the benefits resulting from the con¬
struction of a reservoir on the South Branch of Park River and be¬
lieves that the allocations of costs between the United States and local
interests are reasonable. Adoption of the project is recommended.
AMENDMENT NO. 19
On page 13, after line 10, insert the following:
III the interest of developing the natural resources of the Missouri River Basin
there is hereby created a commission to be known as the Missouri River Com¬
mission, which shall be in the War Department and shall function in accordance
with existing law under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision
of the Chief of Engineers in planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining
improvements for navigation and flood control in the Missouri River Basin.
The Missouri River Commission shall consist of the same number of members
with the same qualifications and methods of appointment, replacement, and
removal as prescribed in the Act approved June 28, 1879, for the Mississippi
River Commission and the compensation for the members of the Missouri River
Commission shall be the compensation presently provided for members of the
Mississqipi River Commission. The President of the Missouri River Commis¬
sion shall have the same qualification and shall be designated in the manner pre¬
scribed by existing law for the President of the Mississippi River Commission
and he shall have the same functions and perquisites including title, pay, allow¬
ances, and rank while actually serving as President of the Missouri River Com¬
mission as well as the same subsequent retirement privileges under the same con¬
ditions as prescribed by law for the President of the Mississippi River Commission.
Amendment No. 19 provides for a Missouri River Commission in
connection with tlie planning, construction, operation, and mainte¬
nance of the improvements for navigation and flood control in the
Missouri River Basin m order that the water resources of that stream
may be developed in the most beneficial manner.
The oldest time- tested waterway organization of the Federal Gov¬
ernment is the Army engineers, but the next oldest is the Mississippi
River Commission. This Commission has jurisdiction over the great¬
est flood-control project in the world, which has been developed and
prosecuted in a thoroughly scientific and democratic way. The Com¬
mission is required by law to make inspections of the works and to hold
public hearings through the valley. It submits recommendations to
the Chief of Engineers in regard "to all works of improvement in the
Lower Mississippi Valley.
In view of proven experience with the organization that has operated
so successfully, so long, in the Mississippi Valley, this committee
16 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
recommend that provision be made in the bill for a Missouri River
Commission similar in all respects to the Mississippi River Commission
to exercise jurisdiction over flood-control and navigation improvements
in the Missouri River Basin, which, with the exception of the Missis¬
sippi Valley, is the largest river valley in the United States.
AMENDMENT NO. 20
On page 15, after line 4, insert the following:
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on the Chariton River,
Missouri, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 628,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $1,610,300.
Amendment 20 authorizes a flood-control project on the Chariton
River.
CHABITON RIVER, MO.
(H. Doc. No. 628, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Chariton River rises near Osceola in south-central Iowa, flows
southeasterly and southerly 278 miles to empty into the Missouri
River in Chariton County, about 7 miles above Glasgow, Mo. The
Chariton River drains 3,080 square miles of plains area varying in
topography from flat to rolling, of which 925 square miles are m Iowa
and 2,155 square miles in north-central Missouri.
The basin is subject to frequent damaging floods which occur during
all seasons of the year. During the 16-year period from 1926 to 1941,
28 floods were experienced. The Chief of Engineers recommends
improvement of the Chariton River, Mo., in Chariton, Macon, and
Adair Counties and in Schuyler and Putnam Counties in the vicinity
of Reinhart ranch by channel and levee improvement, at an estimated
cost of $1,610,300.
The committee believes that these improvements will constitute a
suitable and economically justified plan for improvement of Chariton
River, and it recommends construction of the works proposed by the
Chief of Engineers in the Chariton River Basin.
AMENDMENT NO. 21
On page 16, after line 12, insert the following:
The plan of improvement for flood-control and other purposes in the Kentucky q
River Basin, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief :
of Engineers in House Document Numbered 504, Seventy-eighth Congress, second i
session, at an estimated cost of $23,822,000.
The local flood -protection works at Middlesborough on Yellow Creek, Kentucky,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers -
in House Document Numbered 495, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at :
an estimated cost of $205,200.
The local flood-protection works on the Rough River and tributaries, Kentucky,,
s ibstantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 535, 'Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $360,000.
The Turtle Creek Reservoir on Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania, substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 507, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $2,613,000.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 17
Amendment 21 authorizes flood-control projects on North Fork of
Kentucky River, Yellow Creek, Rough River and tributaries, and
Turtle Creek.
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.
' (H. Doc. No. 504, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Kentucky River is formed by the junction of the North and
Middle Forks, 4 miles east of Beattyville, Ky., and flows 263 miles
northwesterly to join the Ohio River about 546 miles below Pitts¬
burgh. The river drains an area of 6,935 square miles.
Floods are of frequent occurrence in the Kentucky River Basin.
The agricultural areas subject to flooding, although not extensive, are
highly productive. The most important urban centers subject to
damage from floods are Jackson, Hazard, Beattyville, Clay City, and
Frank! or t.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the construction of a cut-off in the North Fork of the
Kentucky River at Jackson to connect parallel reaches of the North
Fork, a short distance downstream from Jackson, at an estimated cost
of $66,000. The cut-off would shorten the stream about 4}i miles
and would reduce flood heights at Jackson, Ky., from 4 to 6 feet. The
Chief of Engineers also recommends modification of the approved
general comprehensive plan for flood control in the Ohio River Basin
to permit the development of hydroelectric power at the Jessamine
Creek and Booneville projects, which are included in the previously
approved comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin, and the
abandonment of the existing navigation project on the Kentucky
River above the site of Jessamine Creek Dam, when that project is
built. Detailed studies show that the development of hydroelectric
power in the Kentucky River Basin is economically feasible with
incidental benefit to water supply and pollution abatement resulting
from a better regulation of stream flow.
The committee believes that the Jackson cut-off is warranted by the
reduction in flood damages at that point, and that the Kentucky
River is a suitable stream for the development of hydroelectric power.
It has reviewed the navigation project on the Kentucky River and
finds that, during recent years, commerce on the upper river above
lock 7 has been rather small or negligible. It is believed that pros¬
pective commerce which might use the authorized navigation improve¬
ment on the upper river is contingent upon a number of factors that
are rather indeterminate. Trends indicate that the commerce on the
river below lock 7 will retain its present volume and may increase
somewhat but any increase above lock 7 appears improbable. Under
these circumstances, the committee feels that the construction of a
dam at the Jessamine Creek site would not constitute an unreasonable
obstruction to practical navigation on the Kentucky River. Accord¬
ingly, the committee recommends the adoption by the Congress of the
proposals of the Chief of Engineers.
YELLOW CREEK, KY.
(H. Doc. No. 495, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Yellow Creek is formed by the confluence of Stony and Bennetts
Forks in Middlesborough, Ky., and flows northward to the Cumber¬
land River, 5 miles above Pineville, Ky. It drains an area of 103
square ir iles.
S. Rept. 1030, 78-2 - 2
18 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Flood damage in the basin is negligible, except at Middlesborougli,
a coal-mining and manufacturing center, with a population of 12,000.
The Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, authorized the construction
of a diversion channel, levees, and appurtenant works to collect and
divert the floodwaters of Bennetts, Stony, and Licks Forks and Four
Mile Run around the north side of the city. The work was completed
in 1940, at a cost of $807,200, and will be effective in preventing over¬
flow and damage in the city, except for an area at the lower end of
the project, subject to overflow by backwater from Yellow Creek.
The plan of improvement provides for the modification of the i
existing flood-control project for Middlesborougli, Ky., on Yellow '
Creek, to provide for the construction of a supplemental levee system
with adequate floodgates, at an estimated cost of $205,200. The
committee finds that the benefits accruing from the works recom¬
mended by the Chief of Engineers amply justify the proposed expendi¬
tures, and it recommends the adoption of the project.
ROUGH RIVER, KY.
(H. Doc. No. 535, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Rough River rises in northwestern Kentucky, flows in a generally
westerly direction 136 miles and joins Green River at Liveimore, Ky.,
71 miles above the confluence of the Green and Ohio Rivers. It
drains an area of 1,080 square miles.
Agricultural lands in the lower Rough River Basin are subject to
frequent inundation. As a result of the threat of crop losses only
about one-half of the area once farmed is now under cultivation and
the net yield of cultivated land after crop losses, averages consider¬
ably less than half of the normal yield for land of equal productivity
but not subject to flooding.
The comprehensive flood-control plan for the Ohio River Basin
approved by Congress, includes a reservoir on Rough River which is
eligible to be selected for construction. The Chief of Engineers finds
that clearing of the channel banks of the lower 64 miles of Rough
River and channel improvements in the lower 6.7 miles of Barnett
Creek, a tributary, are economically feasible as supplemental works i
of improvement in the Rough River Basin, and that they will produce |
important flood-control benefits. The estimated cost of this work is .
$360,000. _ _ _ . _ :
The committee concurs in the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers and recommends the adoption of the project. |
TURTLE CREEK, PA. j
(H. Doc. No. 507, 78th Cong., 2d sess.) '
Turtle Creek rises in Westmoreland County, Pa., and flows westerly
into pool No. 2 of the Monongahela River navigation project, 11.6
miles above the junction of the Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers
at Pittsburgh. It drains a watershed about 15 miles long having an
area of 148 square miles.
Lower Turtle Creek Valley is subject to destructive floods both
from run-off originating within the Creek Basin and from backwater i
from the Monongahela River when it is at high stage.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 19
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for relief from headwater floods in the lower valley in con¬
junction with low-water flow improvement for pollution abatement
by the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir on Turtle Creek,
8 miles above the mouth, at an estimated cost of $2,613,000.
Since flood crests from Turtle Creek reach Pittsburgh ahead of
IMonongahela-Allegheny River crests, all of the flood-control benefits
of the reservoir accrue to the local valley. After carefully considering
the nature of the benefits resulting from the construction of the
Turtle Creek Reservoir, the committee believes that the allocation
of the cost between the United States and local interests, as proposed
by the Chief of Engineers, is reasonable and the committee recom¬
mends adoption of the project, in accordance witn the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers.
The committee desires to point out that amendment No. 21 puts
the aforementioned projects into the approved comprehensive basin
plan and makes them eligible for selection by the Chief of Engi.neers
for construction under the authorizations made available by the
Congress for the prosecution of the comprehensive plan.
AMENDMENT NO. 22
On page IS, after line 3,. insert the following:
The project for the Mount Morris Reservoir on the Genesee River, New York,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 615, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $5,360,000.
Amendment 22 authorizes construction of a reservoir for flood con¬
trol on the Genesee River.
GENESEE RIVER, N. Y.
(H. Doc. No. 615, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Genesee River has its source in the Allegheny Mountains in north¬
ern Pennsylvania, and flows northward 158 miles to Lake Ontario at
Rochester. It drains an area of 2,476 square miles consisting of a
series of terraces descending northward from the Allegheny plateau
to Lake Ontario. Rochester, with a population of 328,000, is an
industrial and distributing center and is the largest city in the basin.
Floods are a frequent occurrence in the Genesee Basin and affect
residential and industrial centers in Rochester, Mount Morris, Cum-
minsville, and Wellsville; agricultural land in the Genesee and Cana-
seraga Valleys; and railroads and utilities at a number of localities.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
consists of the construction of the Mount Morris Reservoir on Genesee
River, N. Y., for flood control and other purposes, at an estimated
cost of $5,360,000.
The committee notes that the Mount Morris Reservoir would fit
into any comprehensive plan for the development of the water
resources of the Genesee River Basin. It finds that the Mount
Morris Reservoir is economically justified and will provide flood
protection to the city of Rochester and to the valley lands between
Mount Morris and Rochester. Accordingly, it recommends adoption
of the project.
20 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
I
AMENDMENT NO. 23 j
On page 18, after line 24, insert the followmg:
GREAT SALT BASIN
The project on the Sevier River for local flood protection at Redmond, Utah,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 614, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $281,000.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN ^
The project for the Alamo Reservoir on the Bill Williams River, Arizona, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 625, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $3,202,000.
Amendment 23 authorizes projects on the Sevier River in the Great
Salt Basin and on the Bill Williams River in the Colorado River
Basin.
SEVIER RIVER AT REDMOND, UTAH
(H. Doc. No. 614, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Sevier River rises in the mountains of southern Utah, flows
northerly 240 miles, then southwesterly 85 miles and empties into
Sevier Lake which has no outlet. It drains an area of about 11,100
square miles. Redmond, with a population of 640, is on the west
banlc of the river, 155 miles above its mouth.
Floods occur in Sevier River at Redmond about three times every
5 years. They cause damages to crops on and irrigation facilities
appurtenant to about 3,300 acres of farm land near Redmond; to
mads, bridges, the diversion dams of the Westview and Gunnison-
Fayette canals and crops on about 3,900 acres of irrigated lands served |
by the diversions; to main canals; and to the town of Redmond.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the construction of a leveed channel from near Salina to a
point about 50,000 feet downstream, of a levee extending from the
relocated Westview Diversion Dam to Redmond Lake Dam, and of
two diversion dams to replace existing structures, all at an estimated
cost of $281,000.
The committee finds that the project for the improvement of the
Sevier River at Redmond is economically justified by a wide margin
and recommends the adoption of the project in accordance with the
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers.
BILL WILLIAMS RIVER, ARIZ. ^
(H. Doc. No. 625, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Bill Williams River is formed by the junction of the Big Sandy '4
and Santa Maria Rivers in .west central Arizona and flows westerly ‘3
47 miles into Havasu Lake on Colorado River. The basin has an
area of 5,500 square miles and consists largely of desert valleys lying Li
between irregularly distributed minor momitain ranges.
Floods occur on the Bill W illiams River on an average of once in 3
or 4 years. It is estimated that about 26,000 acres of land are subject
to inundation during major floods and that flood damages in the basin f
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 21
average about $5,000 annually. Floods on Bill Williams River, how¬
ever, also cause damage in the lower Colorado River Valley. It is
estimated that from 220,000 to 233,000 acres of arable land in Parker,
Palo Verde and Yuma Valleys are affected and that future damages in
these highly developed agricultural areas will average $184,000
annually.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
provides for the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir on the
Bill Williams River at the Alamo site, at an estimated cost of
$3,202,000. The reservoir is to be used initially for flood control with
provisions for its future use as a multiple-purpose project for flood
control and to include conservation storage for ultimate development
of irrigation and power in and near the Bill Williams Basin.
The project proposed by the Chief of Engineers will provide imme¬
diately the needed protection for lives and property in the highly
developed lower Colorado River Valley and will provide for ultimate
utilization of the water resources of Bill Williams River to the maxi¬
mum practicable extent for irrigation and water power with incidental
benefits to water supplies, recreation and wildlife. The committee
recommends the adoption of the project, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers.
AMENDMENT NO. 24
On page 20, after line 6, insert the following:
PAJARQ RIVER BASIN
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on the Pajaro River and
tributaries, California, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 505,
^ Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $511,160.
Amendment 24 authorizes a project for flood control and other
purposes in the Pajaro River Basin.
PAJARO RIVER, CALIF.
(H. Doc. No. 505, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Pajaro River rises in San Felipe Lake, flows westerly about 30
miles and empties into Monterey Bay about 75 miles south of San
Francisco. It drains an area of 1,303 square miles of mountain and
valley lands in western California.
Damages due to floods are confined principally to South Santa
Clara Valley and to lands along the Pajaro River. Damaging floods
occur on Pajaro River below the San Benito River, with an average
frequency of once in 2 or 3 years.
The Chief of Engineers recommends a project for flood control
consisting of levees with bank protection works along the lower
Pajaro River and on Carnadero Creek at Gilroy at an estimated cost
of $511,160.
The committee believes that the improvements recommended by
the Chief of Engineers are warranted and recommends the adoption
of the project.
22 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOB FLOOD CONTROL
AMENDMENT NO. 25
On page 20 strike out lines 9 through 17 and insert in lieu thereof
the following:.
The projects for the control of floods and other purposes on the Sacramento
River, California, adopted by the Acts approved March 1, 1917, May 15, 1928,
August 26, 1937, and August 18, 1941, are hereby modified substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 649, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $50,100,000; and in addition to
SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIF. ^
(H. Doc. No. 649, 78th Cong., 2d sess.) |
Amendment 25 modifies the existing project on the Sacramento ;
River in aecordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers as contained in House Document No. 649, Seventy-eighth '
Congress, second session, instead of in accordance with the recom- 1
mendations of the Board of Engineers, for Rivers and Harbors sinee
the report of the Chief of Engineers has now been submitted. At I
the time the House of Representatives passed H. R. 4485, the report ,
of the Chief of Engineers had not been transmitted to Congress. The
only essential change m the -recommendations provides for the instal- ^
lation of a small power plant in connection with the Table Mountain :
project as recommended by the Federal Power Commission, if found
advisable, at an estimated additional cost of $4,050,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 26
On page 21 after line 2, insert the following:
The project for the Folsom Reservoir on the American River, California, is t
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the plans contained in House 7
Document Numbered 649, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, with such ■
modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief
of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost of $18,474,000.
SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIF.
(H. Doc. No. 649, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Amendment 26 authorizes the construction of the Folsom Reservoir
project on the American River in accordance with the plans contained
in House Document No. 694, Seventy-eighth Congress, second ses¬
sion. The plan of improvement provides for the constiuction of a |
concrete gravity dam at the Folsom site for flood control and irriga- i
tion. The structure would be 265 feet high creating a reservoir having
a total storage capacity of 355,000 acre-feet, of which 303,000 acre-
feet would be usable storage and 52,000 acre-feet dead storage. The
maximum storage reserved for flood control would be 260,000 acre-
feet, which is equivalent to 2.6 inches of run-off over the 1,875 square
miles of drainage area above the dam. The design of the structure
includes power intake facilities, as it is considered that power develop¬
ment at this site may be warranted in the future.
The Folsom project will control flood peaks on the American River '
and thereby reduce the threat to the city of Sacramento which would ^
be seriously flooded if an uncontrolled flood on the American River
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBlilC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 23
should synchronize with a major flood crest on the Sacramento
River. The possibility of the occurrence of the synchronization of
flood crests on these two rivers is a constant peril to the residents of
Sacramento and vicinity.
AMENDMENT NO. 27
On page 22, after line 24, insert the following;
The plan of improvement for flood control and other purposes on the Calaveras
River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 545, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $3,868,200.
NAPA RIVER BASIN
The project for the Conn Creek Reservoir on Conn Creek for flood control and
other purposes in the Napa River Basin, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 626, Seventj^-eighth Congress, .second session, at an
estimated cost of $460,000.
Amendment 27 authorizes projects in the San Joaquin and Napa
River Basins.
CALAVERAS RIVER AND LITTLEJOHN CREEK, CALIF.
(H. Doc. No. 545, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The streams comprising the Littlejohn and Calaveras River groups
rise in the Sierra Nevada and its foothills, flow westerly across the flat
lands of the San Joaquin Valley and empty into the San Joaquin River
directly, or through various sloughs in the vicinity of Stockton. To¬
gether, they drain an area of 1,220 square miles. The valley lands are
essentially a delta area in which the streams of both groups are more
or less interconnected by creeks and swales.
Floods on these streams are flashy and of relatively small volume of
run-off. At least 16 damaging floods have occurred in the 42-year
period between 1899 and 1940. Stockton and the rural towns of
French Camp, Farmington, and Linden are subject to inundation by
major floods.
The Chief of Engineers recommends a plan of improvement con¬
sisting of the construction of the Farmington Reservoir on Littlejohn
Creek in the foothill section to control the run-off from 210 square
miles; a diversion channel from Duck Creek to Littlejohn Creek below
the reservoir to limit Duck Creek flows below Farmington; two dikes
across downstream channels leading from Duck Creek to Mormon
Slough; enlargement of Hogan Reservoir to provide storage capacity
for flood control and irrigation; enlargement of 14.4 miles of exist¬
ing channel in Bear Creek; excavation of 1.3 miles of new channel;
and construction of 30.1 miles of levee, all at an estimated cost of
$3,868,200.
The works proposed will afford complete protection from floods of
the magnitude of the maximum of record and in addition will provide
opportunity for the storage of water for irrigation and municipal
water supply. The committee finds that the works proposed by the
•Chief of Engineers are urgently needed to maintain the orderly
economic development of the watershed, and recommends that the
project be adopted in accordance with the recommendations of the
I
24 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Chief of Engineers and subject to the conditions of local cooperation
set forth in his report.
NAPA RIVEE, CALIF.
(H. Doc. No. 626, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
The Napa River rises on the south slope of Mount St. Helena in
Lake County, Calif., flows in a southeasterly direction 50 miles, and
empties into Mare Island Strait, an arm of Carquinez Strait. The
drainage basin comprises 394 square miles, ranging from tidal marshes
in the downstream portion to mountainous terrain along the eastern,
northern, and western borders.
The Napa River Basin is subject to severe winter rainstorms which
cause damaging floods in the main stream and many of its tributaries.
The summers are dry, and the normal flow in the stream is inadequate
to meet the demands for domestic water supplies and irrigation.
The Chief of Engineers recommends a plan of improvement con¬
sisting of the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir on Conn
Creek for flood control and water conservation supplemented by
channel clearing, bank protection, and dikes at certain points be¬
tween the proposed dam and Napa, at an estimated cost of $1,293,099,
of which $460,000 would be borne by the Federal Government.
Since the proposed project will have a portion of its storage reserved
exlusively for water supply, the Chief of Engineers recommends that
local interests contribute toward the cost of the reservoir, the cost of
the conservation feature estimated as $836,000.
The committee believes that the project recommended by the Chief
of Engineers is both desirable and economically justified and it recom¬
mends that the project be adopted in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers.
AMENDMENT NO. 28
On page 24, after line 20, insert the following:
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN
The project on Chehalis River for local flood protection at Hoquiam, Aberdeen,
and Cosmopolis, Washington, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 494, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$669,000.
TERRITORY OF HAWAII
The project of the Hanapepe River for local flood protection at Hanapepe,
Island of Kauai, Territory of Hawaii, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in the report submitted
to Congress by the Secretary of War on March 15, 1944, at an estimated cost of
$73,000.
Amendment 28 authorizes local flood protection works in the Che¬
halis River Basin and on the island of Kauai, T. H.
S z
CHEHALIS RIVER, WASH.
(H. Doc. No. 494, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Chehalis River rises in southwestern Washington, flows north and
east 42 miles to the city of Chehalis, thence northwesterly 68 miles
to Aberdeen where it empties into Grays Harbor, an arm of the Pacific
Ocean. It drains an area. of 2,063 square miles.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 25
Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis are subject to extensive
damage resulting from high tidal stages in Grays Harbor caused by
winds. Above these municipal areas, the basin is subject to dahiaging
headwater floods with an approximate frequency of once in 3 years,
i The Chief of Engineers finds that works of improvement for the
t reduction of headwater flood damage cannot be justified at this time,
f He finds that protection against tidal floods at Aberdeen, Hoquiam,
{ and Cosmopolis are warranted. He recommends protection for these
1 areas by a system of earth levees, concrete and sheet piling wall, and
(the raising of railway embankments and appurtenant works, at an
estimated cost of $669,000.
The committee is of the opinion that the project for the protection
V of municipal areas in the Chehalis River Basin is economically justi-
I fied and recommends the adoption of the project in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.
HANAPEPE RIVER, ISLAND OF KAUAI, T. H.
I (Report transmitted March 15, 1944)
, Hanapepe River drains an area of 30 square miles in the south central
I portion of the Island of Kauai, T. H. It flows southwesterly and
I empties into the Hanapepe Bay where there is an existing federally
improved harbor known as Port Allen; 1,170 of the 1,500 inhab-
' itants in the basin reside in the town of Hanapepe.
The flood plain of the Hanapepe River extends from the bay
approximately 2.3 miles upstream and is 1,000 to 3,000 feet wide
containing about 144 acres in the town and 230 acres of agricultural
land above the town. During the past 20 years the river has been
subjected to six important damaging floods.
The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers
’ would protect about 27 acres, including the principal business and
residential property in the town of Hanapepe against the largest flood
reasonably to be expected on an average of once in 100 years. The
work consists of the construction of a concrete flood wall extending
from new Kauai Highway to the cliffs, the raismg of a short section of
roadway at the upper end, and to assure effectiveness of the work,
replacement of railway trestles which accumulate quantities of drift
during flood periods, all at an estimated cost of $73,000.
The committee believes that the plan of flood protection for the
business and residential sections of the town of Hanapepe is war¬
ranted and recommends adoption of the project recommended by the
Chief of Engineers.
AMENDMENT NO. 29
On page 25, after line 19, insert the following:
Pasquotank River, North Carolina.
Amendment 29 includes in the bill authorization for a preliminary
examination and survey of Pasquotank River, N. C.
AMENDMENT NO. 30
On page 25, after line 24, insert the following:
For flood control, rice irrigation, navigation, pollution, salt-water intrusion,
and drainage on all streams and bayous in southwest Louisiana, west of the West
Atchafalaya Basin protection levee, and south of the latitude of Boyce; on all
26 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC W'ORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
streams and bayous in Louisiana lying between the East Atchafalaya Basin pro¬
tection levee and the Mississippi River; and on Amite River and tributaries,
Louisiana.
Amendment 30 includes in the bill authorization for a preliminary
examination and survey of certain streams in Louisiana for flood con¬
trol, rice irrigation, navigation, pollution, salt-water intrusion, and
drainage.
AMENDMENT NO. 31
On page 26, after line 21, insert the following:
Arkansas River above Pine Bluff, Arkansas, with special reference to control
of caving banks in the vicinity of Hensley Bar and the McFaddeii Place, in
Jefferson County, Arkansas.
Amendment 31 includes in the bill authorization for a preliminary
examination and survey of the Arkansas River above Pine Bluff, Ark.,
with a special reference to the control of caving banks in the vicinity
of Plensley Bar and the McFadden Place, in Jefferson County, Ark.
AMENDMENT NO. 32
On page 27, after line 2, insert the following:
Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, Calif.
Amendment 32 includes in the hill authorization for a preliminary
examination ar. d survey of Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, Calif.
AMENDMENT NO. 33
On page 27, after line 4, insert the following:
Elkhorn River and its tributaries, Nebraska.
Amendment 33 includes in the bill authorization for preliminary
examination and survey of the Elkhorn River and its tributaries,
Nebraska.
AMENDMENT NO. 34
On page 27, line 5, strike out “$810,000,000” and insert in lieu
thereof “$959,465,000”.
Amendment 34 raises to $959,465,000 the total authorization pro¬
vided by the bill in order that sufficient authorization may be avail¬
able to cover the additional improvements included in the bill by the
amendments of the Senate.
PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
Amendments 35 to 42, inclusive, pertain to the program of the De¬
partment of Agriculture for run-off retardation and soil-erosion pre¬
vention on certain watersheds of the United States for which author¬
ization under the flood control legislation is proposed in H. R. 4485.
The bill as passed by the House of Representatives, contains items
authorizing plans of improvements for eight watersheds. The amend¬
ments recommended by the committee make certain modification in
the language of the bill as it passed the House of Representatives and
includes authorization for three additional watersheds.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBl^jC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 27
AMENDMENT NO. 35
On page 28, line 11, change the period after the word “require¬
ments” to a colon and insert the following;
Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as approving or
authorizing the acquisition of any land by the Federal Government.
The committee heard testimony from representatives of the Depart¬
ment of Agriculture pertaining to their program for run-off retarda¬
tion and soil-erosion prevention. The testimony presented at these
hearings showed that several of the Department of Agriculture’s
reports recommend the acquisition of land. The committee believes
that it is unwise for the Federal Government to acquire large tracts
of land for watershed treatment programs under flood-control legisla¬
tion. It has, therefore, recommended amendment No. 35 which pro¬
vides that nothing in this section shall be construed as approving or
authorizing the acquisition of any land by the Federal Government.
AMENDMENT NO. 36
On page 28, after line 18, insert the following:
SANTA YNEZ EIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Santa Ynez River watershed is hereby approved substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agri¬
culture in House Document Numbered 518, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost to the United States of $418,000.
SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATERSHED
(H. Doc. No. 518, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Amendment 36 authorizes the program of watershed treatment on
the Santa Ynez River, Calif., at an estimated cost of $418,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 37
On page 28, line 24, strike out “$32,000,000” and insert in lieu
thereof “$27,348,000”.
TRINITY RIVER, TEX.
(H. Doc. No. 708, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Amendment 37 reduces the estimated cost of the Department of
Agriculture’s program on the Trinity River watershed from $32,000,-
000 to $27,348,000. This reduction is the estimated cost of the
acquisition of land and the treatment of that land by the Department
of Agriculture.
AMENDMENT NO. 38
On page 29, line 7, strike out “$4,221,000” and insert in lieu thereof
“$2,171,000.”
LITTLE TALLAHATCHIE RIVER, MISS.
(H. Doc. No. 892, 77th Cong., 2d sess.)
Amendment 38 reduces the estimated cost of the Department of
Agriculture’s program on the Little Tallahatchie River watershed
from $4,221,000 to i$2,171,000. This reduction is the estimated cost
29 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC VORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
of the acquisition of land and the treatment of that land by the j
Department of Agriculture. I
AMENDMENT NO. 39 I
On page 29, after line 7, insert the following;
YAZOO RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Yazoo River watershed is hereby approved substantially j,
in accordance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture t
in House Document Numbered 564, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at '
an estimated cost to the United States of $12,500,000.
YAZOO RIVER WATERSHED, MISSISSIPPI
(H. Doc. No. 564, 78th Cong., 2d sess.)
Amendment 39 authorizes the program of the watershed treatment
on the Yazoo River, Miss., at an estimated cost of $12,500,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 40
On page 30, after line 2, ipsert the following:
BUFFALO CREEK WATERSHED, NEW YORK, (BUFFALO, CAYUGA, AND CAZENOVIA
CREEKS)
The program on the watershed of Buffalo Creek and its tributaries, Cayuga
and Cazenovia Creeks, is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the
recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
Numbered 574, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost to
the United States of $739,000.
BUFFALO CREEK WATERSHED, NEW YORK, (BUFFALO, CAYUGA, AND CAZENOVIA
CREEKS)
(H. Doc. No. 574, 78th Cong., 2d sess.) h
Amendment 40 authorizes the program of watershed treatment on a
the Buffalo Creek and its tributaries, Cayuga and Cazenovia Creeks, f
N. Y., at an estimated cost of $739,000.
. ' 1
AMENDMENT NO. 41
On page 30, line 19, strike out “$11,243,000”, and insert in lieu
thereof “$7,007,000.” :
WASHITA RIVER, OKLA. AND TEX. (
(H. Doc. No. 275, 78th Cong., 1st sess.)
Amendment 41 reduces the estimated cost of the Department of !
Agi’iculture’s program on the Washita River, Okla. and Tex., from •
$11,243,000 to $7,007,000. This reduction is the estimated cost of 1
the acquisition of land and the treatment of that land by the Depart- -
ment of Agriculture.
AMENDMENT NO. 42 f
On page 31, line 6, strike out “10”, and insert in lieu thereof “12.” ‘
Amendment 42 is to take into account the new section numbeiing i
of the bill as recommended by the committee.
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 29
AMENDMENT NO. 43
On page 32, after line 2, insert a new section as follows:
Sec. 15. (a) The Chief of Engineers of the United States Army is authorized
and directed to make examinations of any privately owned or operated dam con¬
structed across navigable waters of the United States, or across tributaries thereof.
(6) Whenever it shall appear, after reasonable notice and opportunity for
hearing to the person or corporation owning or controlling any such dam, that
such dam is being operated or maintained in such a manner as to jeopardize the
safety of persons or property either above or below such dam, the Chief of En¬
gineers shall enter orders requiring such changes in the operation or maintenance
of such dam as he deems appropriate and necessary, and prescribing a reasonable
time within which such changes shall be made. If, at the end of such reasonable
time, the changes in operation or maintenance ordered by the Chief of Engineers
have not been made, the Chief of Engineers shall notify the United States district
attorney for the district in which such dam or any part thereof is situated, who
shall forthwith cause criminal proceedings to be instituted against the person, or
corporation, owning or controlling such dam.
(c) Any person or corporation willfully failing or refusing to comply with an
order of the Chief of Engineers issued pursuant to this section shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding $5,000. Every month during which such willful failure or refusal
continues shall be deemed to be a separate offense and shall subject such person or
corporation to the penalties herein prescribed.
Amendment 43 proposes a new, section which authorizes the Chief
; of Engineers to make inspections of dams constructed across navigable
[ waters of the United States or across tributaries thereof and to require
) such changes in the operation and maintenance of such dams as he
} may deem appropriate and necessary to safeguard life and property.
I Considerable testimony was presented to the committee to the
I effect that in certain cases private dam and reservoir projects have
“ been operated in such manner as to increase flood hazards. They
desire that the Chief cf Engineers inspect and supervise the operation
of such projects to safeguard against such hazards.
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS IN THE BILL
f The Committee on Flood Control of the House of Representatives
[gives in detail in its Report No. 1309, dated March 29, 1944, the
[ explanation of projects of the War Department included in the flood
control bill as passed by the House of Representatives. These
[projects and page references to the discussion thereof in Report No.
i 1309 are tabulated below.
River or basin
Authorization
in n. R. 4485
as passed by
House of Rep¬
resentatives
Page in
Report
No. 1309
Connecticut River _ . . .
$30. 000, 000
8,9
9
Thames River . . . . . .
7, 200, 000
5,151, 000
10, 374, 000
14, 400, 000
9, 10
10, 11
11, 12
12-15
Susquehanna River . . . . .
Lower Mississippi River .
210, 717, 000
Red-Ouachita River . . .
Arkansas River. ... . . . .
3, 800, 000
46, 708, 400
15
16-18
White River _ . . .
45. 000, 000
19
Upper Mississippi . . . . . . . . .
10. 708, 500
902,910
19-22
Red River of the North . . .
22
216, 785, 730
70, 000, 000
775, 200
23-29
Ohio River _ : . - .
29-31
Great Lakes . ... . . . . . . . . .
31-33
Colorado River (Texas) . . . . .
6, 360, 000
33,34
30 CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
•>
River or basin
Authorization
in H. R. 4486
as passed by
House of Rep¬
resentatives
Page in
Report
No, 1309
$15, 000, 000
34, 35
35
68, 500
370, 000
35, 36
36
1,600, 000
10, 000, 000
36-38
25, 000, 000
16, 000, 000
40, 400, 000
38
39
39-45
143, 000
45
23, 000
45, 46
20, 000, 000
1, 339, 000
127, 000
46, 47
47.48
48.49
Total _ _ _ _ _
807, 953, 270
The War Department projects added by the proposed amendments
of the committee and discussed previously in this report are tabulated
below:
River or basin:
Lake Champlain Basin _
Blackstone River _
Roanoke River _
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Edisto River -
Savannah River _
Red-Ouachita River _
Upper Mississippi River -
Red River of the North _
Missouri River _
Ohio River _
Great Lakes _
Great Salt Basin -
Colorado River _
Pajaro River _
Sacramento River -
San Joaquin River _
Napa River _
Chehalis River _
Territory of Havt^aii _
Authorization
$2, 120, 000
4, 187, 000
36, 140, 000
10, 840, 000
139, 000
35, 300, 000
14, 080, 000
15, 152, 000
1. 502, 410
L 610, 300
27, 000, 000
5, 360, 000
281, 000
3, 202, 000
511, 160
22, 518, 000
3, 868, 200
460,000 a
669,000 i
73,000 a
Total
185,013,070 .7
o’mahoney amendment
The committee has considered the amendment offered by Senator i
O’Mahoney and its several revisions. Extensive testimony pro and i
con is contained in the hearings. Many considerations, among them t
the following, have caused the committee to reject the amendment t
and to recommend against the adoption of this or any similar amend- •
ment in connection with the flood-control bill.
(a) The proposed legislation is of very doubtful constitutionality :
and would give rise to much fruitless litigation with consequent serious >
delay to important construction work.
(b) Under the proposed O’Mahoney amendment any authorization i
of any project contained in the bill will become ineffective if objected :
to by any affected State (as defined in the amendment) or upon the i
objection of the Secretaiy of the Interior in respect to all projects west 1
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 31
of the ninety-seventh meridian. Every project contained in this
bill has been thoroughly processed by the Corps of Engineers and
opportunity given for anybody in interest to be heard in opposition.
Furthermore, tire committee has spent days in hearing testimony in
respect to all the projects recommended to be authorized. All this
laborious work on the part of the Army engineers and the committee
and, finally, of the Congress, may in many instances prove to be
“Love’s labor lost.” The amendment would in fact give the States
a power of veto over legislation enacted by the Congi-ess and approved
by the President.
(c) The opportunity for States and other local mterests to present
their views on proposed improvements which the amendment purports
to provide is at present fully safeguarded by existing procedures of the
Federal construction agencies, especially the Corps of Engineers, and
through the democratic process of open hearings before the committees
of Congress which consider authorizing legislation and appropriate
bills.
(d) The changes in water-use policy which would result from
enactment of the amendment are of such far-reaching consequence
that they go far beyond the jurisdiction of this committee and the
scope of the flood-control bill. Any such broad modifications of
existing policy should be considered in separate legislation dealing
only with those subjects.
(e) If Congress does consider changing existing policies by legis¬
lation the committee recommends that all Federal agencies be placed
on the same basis and specifically that Congress retain to itself the
function of authorizing investigations and construction of water-use
projects mdividually by act of Congress. This would require re¬
vision of the Federal Reclamation'^Act under which at the present
time projects are authorized merely by means of a finding of feasibility
by the Secretary of the Interior.
OTHER FLOOD-CONTROL BILLS CONSIDERED
Senators Clark of Missouri, McClellan, and Maybank mtroduced
bills S. 1812, S. 1519, and S. 1876, respectively, as separate flood-control
bills. These were considered by the committee as proposed amend¬
ments to H. R. 4485. The amendments proposed by the com¬
mittee to H. R. 4485 incorporate a number of the provisions of all
three of these separate flood-control bills.
o
i
rr; *''.: >rhi
1 • ■«'•■• 'fr '■’r.y ‘ ,' - : ".''■' ■, ' t'S'« ‘ ■' - -f
•• ' - -7!n a '•:. r n .M. iZ.*^ ' ’In
:** * f •■r s*
SV •* * -- • ■ * •
r • •
‘
V ., ; .. . *' ?'w^'’*''C’t ;-• ■/^(■i;''r.'' ■■?*''' ' ' .^ t ^
t'. .*<J ■'V - . ■ -i': ■ , i .‘ 'I/-'' ■■•■■Jv-_. '-‘■.t' r , ■•:. 'I .4
;-; •- - . F'i. '.;1 ;,J' ■■, ' 'V '^. V;vi"r .,^1 i f, -7' .'j
■i. > • 'V' ' ' w
'V.i <v<
<■ ■ . .,j ^ ■ ■ *.••■' ' ^ ^ * . . . -•
' ■■' . . ' . ■:v/< •; ■ iis/hr .'
• ''..ul ■ ■'• .KNVJ^r. J' • ,_i "fn i. ' ; ,{ 'J
■ ■ v.ff 1
'J
C • ; . ^
i
•A'lflO
. o^.'t -.Air'.,..
Si_
•- ;
■ 1*'
J* -v <„
'.1 .
/*<
V-
• 1 Tja'.r.ii
■ Vl
o, \
:v; ■•
i;..; -va; jk-j :
' • ' '
si i.-
•V'
iiSV J'.'
'l-*-
’ a;<,
M ^
!• . *..*
.. A>'.' lOivt"
y ify'sj-i.-. ,,? «
‘-j.;;
1,TO-(
7^'
Sif'', '1
.''AT" ,i- Vi' ■
kr jjlJ! i ■
,'T 0 .
» ' </
• '• V
■[,bi
A' '/ •
A ' -q 0 i; ,. -;
. u /.* ri
fir:
■.y\ •;
OuJ
■■■US
T
■ u) H'lfi,
i '.i:*! -A
' 'i-.i-
<l\li
■:
-tii
! i' '
' 1
olj
!rr' :j;( '!
r{i:
1(1 •
r-t
jj •
: ' f
1.0,1?. ■■ •
■ ‘i*
■ i
. .•.Vj;!'. .-K"'
V ..'i
»} j ■
n
-■!'
i. *■
.* » *’
.V
T i' ... ■.
> r h...
^ .:;::: -.it
<
^ 1
r^r
I. ;
. . . ; 1
J
. -‘''****
.■'•..f-' JO'.'
-. U. '; -r;
'
i VV/'V,*?
■/'ill
; fi
. - J • y\- '
1 . - -
jdj
‘v • ,
■ i
v*'
i* ■ '
■ . ■ ' *• ? . <
■ ffS
- '
j C -> .
A'*-"'
. r -
I j i.ii ' i\ » ' f >; -
'.'’Jt ■■
!0'; \ !' ' '5 '
> i'l .'fy.
■ ;. • ■ ^ ijiij; ' ■ =;•
./ i • ' ; , i ■‘jr;/ Vi :
• ' '• ■-/■•'. . -S. .' ■■
‘1
) i'
1-1
•; T ;
.,-nM
I
:t ';v''-j/..t. .'I ^ /'I » ''.(.jxr.f ,•) ■, i ' >’ii'i
;l<; '■>
. . . . .H ' il’ '•
'I Jtij io s ;>?«•''“* .•.•tr’.: <Vvti- ..'.H f.'i •
. ^ I'riut: »-W)'i •.’ '-i.-:
. I ‘
t
'J - n
>1
. >1
r *
» <
I
I
I V
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
August 9 (lejjislative day, August 8), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to l)e pf()])osed Ity Mr. Hayden to tlie Itill (H. K. 4485)
antliorizing- the construction of certain pidtlic works on rivers
and liarl)ors for flood control, and for other pnr])oses, viz; On
page 10, after line 10, insert the following:
1 The project on the Little Colorado Iliver for local flood
2 protection at Holhrook, Arizona, is herehv authorized sub-
3 stantiahy in accordance with the reconmiendations of the
4 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 648,
5 Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
6 of $258,000.
8-9-44 - A
o
-i
Cu
d
o
(t>
d
QD
•— -
o
w
,— s
■z
o
s
%*
cr
p
C”.
<p
rt-
<
z
P
CL
2
P
5*
p
p
a
d
o
?
rj
cc
H
z
00
V
-
•-i
h^»
M
a
O
a
O
CTi
TJl
cr
^ o
■/ ^•
t-h (i
o
32 3
o
o
P- 3
cr
o 3".
§ ^
w
ro
CL
g"
4- >73
>4^ >S
00 C
Oi iT3
^ C
5-
3" cr
o '<:
a g N- g
?r
73
fjq
£3
O <J
i-s a>
'-t
CO
w
>
H)
o §
o ^
*— I ^
H-"
^/) ^
r^ O
P -
S. o
>
t*l
2
D
n
2
H
-1
^8
a <Z
So
2 W
m
m
x
7^
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944,
decision by the legislative authorities con¬
cerned with policy. The committee is in full
accord with the Civil Aeronautics Board and
the other executive agencies concerned in
recognizing the advisability of “active consid¬
eration of the question of the over-all policy
relating to our very important international
air transportation services.”
This letter is being forwarded to you as the
final authority under existing law on the is¬
suance of certificates for the operation of
United States air lines in overseas and inter¬
national transportation. A copy is being for¬
warded to the Civil Aeronautics Board, who
must approve applications for acquisition or
mergers of Amerlcan-flag carriers in the
International field.
Cordially yours,
JosiAH W. Bailey,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce.
Bennett Champ Clark,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Civil Aeronautics.
DISPOSAL OP SURPLUS WAR PROPERTY-
AMENDMENT
Mr. HATCH submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the
bill (S. 2065) to establish a Surplus War
Property Administration, to provide for
the proper disposal of surplus war prop¬
erty, and for other purposes, which was
ordered to lie on the table and to be
printed.
SPECIAL .COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
PRESIDENTIAL, VICE PRESIDENTIAL,
AND SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDI¬
TURES— LIMIT OP EXPENDITURES
Mr. GREEN submitted the following
resolution (S. Res. 322), which was re¬
ferred to the Committee to Audit and
Control the Contingent Expenses of the
Senate :
Resolved, That the special committee au¬
thorized by Senate Resolution 263, Seventy-
eighth Congress, to Investigate the cam¬
paign expenditures of the various Presiden¬
tial candidates. Vice Presidential candidates,
and candidates for the United States Senate,
and facts relating thereto, is authorized to
expend from the contingent fund of the
Senate $40,000 in addition to the amounts
heretofore authorized for the same pur¬
pose.
INVESTIGATION OP CONDITIONS APPECT-
ING THE HOG, CATTLE, POULTRY, AND
DAIRY INDUSTRIES SITUATIONS
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, with
further reference to Senate Resolution
309, submitted by me for myself and a
number of other Senators on June 15
last, which asks for an investigation
into the livestock and feeding and dis¬
tribution operations, I present a letter
written by Mr. Louis Kavan, of Omaha,
Nebr., general secretary of the Federa¬
tion of Nebraska Retailers, and ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in
the Record, together with a copy of the
resolution to which I have referred.
There being no objection. Senate Reso¬
lution 309, as reported from the Commit¬
tee on Agriculture and Forestry, and the
letter were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows;
Senate Resolution 309
Resolved, That a special committee of five
Senators, to be appointed by the President of
the Senate, is authorized and directed to
make a full and complete investigation with
a view to determining —
(1) the conditions prevailing in the pro¬
duction, processing, distribution, and market¬
ing of livestock, livestock feed, poultry, eggs,
milk, and the products thereof;
(2) the effect of regulations, orders, and
directives issued by governmental agencies
upon the production, processing, marketing,
distribution, and supplies of such com¬
modities;
(3) any practices wherein processors and
distributors of such commodities are circum¬
venting the purposes and objectives of price
floors, pric^ ceilings, and subsidies at the
expense of the producers and the. Public
Treasury;
(4) reasons for the failures to support
prices to producers as required by existing
law;
(5) alleged adverse effects of maladjust¬
ments* in maximum prices established on
different grades of meat and particularly the
extent to which livestock feeders have been
penalized because of an inadequate allow¬
ance on the better grades of meat to en¬
courage the feeding of livestock;
(6) alleged adverse effects upon the live¬
stock, poultry, and dairy Industries of the
price and other policies relative to corn
and other feed grains and the maladjust¬
ments resulting therefrom.
Such committee shall report to the Senate
as soon as practicable the results of its in¬
vestigation, together with its recommenda¬
tions for any necessary legislation.
For the purpose of this resolution the
committee, or any duly authorized subcom¬
mittee thereof, is authorized to hold such
hearings, to sit and act at such times and
places during the sessions, recesses, and ad¬
journed periods of the Senate in the
Seventy-eighth Congress, to employ such ex¬
perts, and such clerical, stenographic, and
other assistants, to require by subpena or
otherwise the attendance of such witnesses
and the production of such correspondence,
books, papers, and documents, to administer
such oaths, to take such testimony, and to
make such expenditures, as it deems ad¬
visable. The cost of stenographic services
to report such hearings shall not be in excess
of 25 cents per hundred words. The expenses
of the committee, which shall not exceed
$10,000 shall be paid from the contingent
fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved
by the chairman.
Federation op Nebraska Retailers,
Omaha, Nebr., August 5, 1944.
Hon, Kenneth S. Wherry,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator: It is a known fact that for
the past several months large chain-food cor¬
porations have been taking over a number of
slaughtering plants in various sections of the
United States. While quota restrictions were
in force, these chain-owned slaughtering
plants were forced to comply with certain
regulations as to distributing meat within
the territories formerly supplied by the
slaughtering plant when individually owned.
Since quota restrictions have been taken off,
these chain slaughtering plants have In¬
creased considerably the number of animals
slaughtered, and in all probability are divert¬
ing most of the finished product to their
own retail outlets. This in itself can create
very serious conditions for the civilians living
in the territories formerly supplied by pri¬
vately owned slaughtering plants, and it can
aid materially into the broadening of black
markets.
The chains are placed into an advantageous
position by owning their own slaughtering
plants, as irrespective of the amount of losses,
they at least will have a supply of meat for
their retail stores. The greatest injustice,
however, both to the livestock raiser and to
the civilian is that these chain-owned and
operated slaughtering plants are only inter¬
ested in the better grade of animal. They
will seek to purchase only animals that will
7251
grade good or choice. They are not inter¬
ested in canners and cutters, cows, and lower
grades, therefore they place an added burden
upon the lafge packers who, if they are to
buy better grades of beef, are forced to bid a
higher price in competition with the chain
slaughterer. Livestock producers of this
country axe no doubt being penalized since
the inception of chain slaughtering plants.
On the other hand, if the large packers are
forbidden, under the packers’ consent decree,
to own and operate retail outlets, then the
same legal provision should be made to apply
in the case of chain stores.
An immediate investigation should be made
and measures taken to correct this unfair
condition before the American farmer and
civilians are forced to suffer unnecessarily.
Yours for victory,
Louis Kavan, Secretary.
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF SERVICEMEN’S
READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore laid before the Senate House Con¬
current Resolution 94, which was read,
as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring). That there be
printed 55,000 additional copies of Public Law
No. 346, current session, entitled “Service¬
men’s Readjustment Act of 1944,” of which
45,000 copies shall be for the use of the House
document room and 10,000 copies shall be for
the use of the Senate document room.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate concur in the concurrent
resolution.
The motion was agreed to.
APPRAISEMENT OF THE CHICAGO DEMO¬
CRATIC CONVENTION— ADDRESS BY
THE HONORABLE JOSEPHUS DANIELS
[Mr. HILL asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an address en¬
titled “Appraisement of the Chicago Conven¬
tion,” delivered by the Honorable Jqsejrfius
Daniels to the Kiwanis Club at Raleigh, N. C.,
on August 18, 1944, which appears in the
Appendix.]
POST-WAR PROBLEMS — ADDRESS BY
MAYOR LaGUARDIA
[Mr. HATCH asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record a radio address
on post-war problems delivered by Mayor
LaGuardla, of New York, on August 13, 1944,
which will appear hereafter in the Appendix.]
VOTES BY SENATOR THOMAS OP OKLA¬
HOMA ON MAJOR BILLS AND OTHER
MEASURES RELATING TO AGRICUL¬
TURE, LABOR, AND NATIONAL DEFENSE,
AND ON VETOED BILLS
[Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma asked and ob¬
tained leave to have printed in the Record
a tabulation of the votes cast by him on
major bills, resolutions, and amendments
with respect to agriculture, labor, and na¬
tional defense, and on vetoed bills, which
appears in the Appendix.]
THE electoral COLLEGE — ARTICLE BY
JUSTICE HOMER HOCH
[Mr. CAPPER asked and obtained leave to
have printed In the Record an article en¬
titled “Electing a President of the United
States,” by Justice Homer Hoch, of the Su¬
preme Court of the State of Kansas, which
appears in the Appendix.]
THE PROPOSED MISSOURI VALLEY AU¬
THORITY-EDITORIAL PROM THE ST.
LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
[Mr. HILL asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an editorial en¬
titled “M. V. A. Goes to the Senate,” dealing
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE August 22
7252
■with the proposed Missouri Valley authority,
published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of
August 18, 1944, which appears in the Ap¬
pendix.]
AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1944 REPUBLICAN
PLATFORM BY JOHN B. ELLIOTT
[Mr. DOWNEY asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Record a statement
entitled “War Calls for Candor— Republican
Platform Pails,” by John B. Elliott, being an
analysis of the 1944 Republican platform,
which appears in the Appendix.]
THE DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE
AND THE MOVING PICTURE “WOODROW
WILSON”
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, when
the George reconversion bill recently was
passed by the Senate, I stated my opin¬
ion that it would prove woefully defec¬
tive in meeting the impact of post-war
readjustment. I am still of that opin¬
ion and I hope that before our economy
has imposed upon it the stress and strain
that must come from cessation of war
production we will more wisely prepare
for the dynamic age into which soon we
will be engulfed.
But I think that one may turn from
our present failure in the domestic field
to the international arena with a feeling
of high optimism and courage. Great
events are in the making at the Dumbar¬
ton Oaks Conference, and a world that
is sick of war and anarchy should find
inspiring hope as the mighty dream of
Woodrow Wilson for world security,
peace, and justice is being forged into
implemented reality. The Dumbarton
Conference was called by the United
States Government under the leadership
and direction of Franklin Roosevelt and
Cordell Hull; it fulfills the prophetic
vision of Woodrow Wilson; it is the first
formal move to carry out the Moscow
Declaration which obligated the United
States, Russia, Great Britain, and China
to create “a general international organ¬
ization, based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all peace-loving
States, and open to membership by all
such States, large and small, for the
maintenance of international peace and
security.”
The Senate of the United States by
an almost unanimous vote has already
endorsed the findings of the Moscow
Conference, and I think we may safely
assume will likewise approve the treaty
that will develop out of it and through
the present and succeeding conferences
of the great and small nations.
It is difiBcult to think of the Dumbar¬
ton Oaks Conference — ^which today is
earnestly seeking for the best kind of a
league of nations — without thinking also
of Woodrow Wilson, whose prophetic vi¬
sion after the last war saw the vital need
of one, and whose courageous heart and
body were broken in his struggle to at¬
tain it.
1 take some pride because one of the
movie companies of my State — the
Twentieth Century-Pox — has recently
completed and released a mighty, histor¬
ical film portraying the life of Woodrow
Wilson. Some Army officials, seeing this
production, were immediately convinced
that it was propaganda of a political na¬
ture and hastily announced a ban
against its showing at our military
camps. That ban, improperly and ir¬
regularly announced, was almost at once
withdrawn, as there never was any justi¬
fication for it.
So far as I have read what they have
had to say, critics proclaim the picture
Wilson not only great art and enter¬
tainment, but likewise historically true to
an amazing degree. But it may well be
that historical fact, sincerely and dra¬
matically portrayed, may be the most
persuasive of arguments moving us to
energetic and determined action. In¬
deed, I think that is true of this epic film
Wilson, and that almost everyone who
sees it will leave the theater with a
greater understanding of the profound
vision of this great American President,
and a stronger determination that the
noble ideals and ideas for which he died
shall now prevail.
I believe that when the victorious sol¬
diers and sailors of the allies again return
from distant seas and foreign battle¬
fields they will find a world in which
orderly rule is firmly entrenched to
maintain peace and honor among all na¬
tions everywhere.
RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS AND
FLOOD CONTROL
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, there
are pending on the calendar two bills.
House bill 3961 and House bill 4485, the
first relating to river and harbor im¬
provement legislation and the other to
flood control. It was my privilege and
honor to report both bills to the Senate
from the Committee on Commerce. It
has been my desire and it is still my de¬
sire to have both bills taken up as
promptly as possible under all circum¬
stances. Both bills have been acted
upon by the House. Extensive hearings
were held with respect to the river and
harbor bill and also with respect to the
flood-control bill in committee in the
House, and the House passed both bills
and sent them to the Senate.
When the bills came to the Senate
they were referred to the Committee on
Commerce, and were sent to a subcom¬
mittee of that committee, of which I
have the honor to be chairman, and
quite prolonged hearings were held with
respect to both measures. The river and
harbor bill was reported to the Senate
on May 25, and the flood-control bill was
reported to the Senate on June 22 of this
year.
Mr. President, a number of Senators
have from time to time asked me when
the two bills were coming up for
consideration. I am receiving numer¬
ous communications from individuals
throughout the United States who are
interested in both measures and who
want to know when they are going to
be disposed of. Representatives of the
press call on me daily to ascertain at
what time the bills will come before the
Senate for consideration.
Mr. President, I realize that we shall
shortly have before us important post¬
war legislation which we must dispose
of. I refer to the bill dealing with the
disposal of surplus property, which will
be reported today, and I presume will
come up for consideration tomorrow. I
know that that bill necessarily will have
precedence over the proposed river and
harbor and flood-control legislation.
But the people generally throughout the
United States are very much interested
in the bills dealing with river and harbor
improvements and flood control, and I
desire, Mr. President, to ascertain from
the able Senator from Alabama [Mr.
Hill], who is representing the majority
leader, and who, I presume, has con¬
sulted with the majority leader with ref¬
erence to both bills, and from the able
Senator from Maine [Mr. White], the
minority leader, their views concerning
when the bills can be taken up and con¬
sidered.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. HILL. As the Senator from
Louisiana has well said, of course, the im¬
portant bills which deal with making
plans and preparations for the post-war
period must be considered and disposed
of first. As the Senator from Louisiana
has intimated the Senate will very likely
tomorrow take up the bill dealing with
the disposition of surplus property.
How long it will take the Senate to con¬
sider and finally act on that bill, of
course, no one can prophesy. As we
know, the House has taken an unusual
length of time to consider the proposed
legislation. Many amendments have
been offered to the bill now pending in
the House. So, as I have said, no one '
can tell how long it will take the Senate
to act on the proposed legislation.
Then, of course, after the bill shall
have been passed by the two Houses it
will have to go to conference, and a con¬
ference report will have to be acted upon.
As the Senator from Louisiana knows,
the George bill is now pending in the
Ways and Means Committee of the
other House. Of course, that bill will
have to be finally disposed of.
I may say that I talked with the dis¬
tinguished majority leader, the Senator
from Kentucky [Mr. Barkley], a day
or two before he was compelled to leave
the city. As the Senator from Louisiana
knows, there is no better friend of river
and harbor improvements or flood-con¬
trol development than the Senator from
Kentucky. His whole record is one of
consistent and enthusiastic support of
such developments. But it was the
thought of the Senator from Kentucky,
when I last talked with him, that in view
of the urgency of the post-war legisla¬
tion and in view of the fact that there
was at least one highly controversial
matter involved in the river and harbor
bill, a matter which might provoke long
and protracted debate, he hardly thought
it would be possible to take up that bill
at the present time. It was the thought
of the Senator from Kentucky that very
likely both bills would have to go over
until after November 7. Of course, the
Senator from Louisiana is far more fa¬
miliar than I am with the fact that there
is a highly controversial issue involved
in those bills, an issue which would be
hard fought, long fought, and would
cause protracted debate.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, wlfl
the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
7253
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I should like to in¬
quire of the Senator from Alabama if it
is contemplated that dm’ing the 2V2
months which will elapse between now
and November 7 the Senate will remain
in session, or whether a long recess is an¬
ticipated. If we are to remain in session,
I can see no justification for the post¬
ponement of these bills until after elec¬
tion. The proposed legislation is impor¬
tant. Last Friday, in discussing the pro¬
ceedings of the National Rivers and Har¬
bors Congress, I expressed my interest on
the floor of the Senate. I am most anx¬
ious that this legislation be given con¬
sideration as soon as that having prece¬
dence over it by reason of its importance
is out of the way.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Let me say to the Senator
from Arkansas that I share his desire
for prompt action on those bills. I have
a very deep interest in their passage.
Mr. McClellan. I am sure the Sen¬
ator has.
Mr. HILL. However, I believe it was
the thought of the Senator from Ken¬
tucky that after disposing of the bills
dealing with post-war matters, namely,
the George bill and the surplus-property
disposition bill, which the Senate will
take up for consideration tomorrow, the
Senate would perhaps then be in recess,
unless something unforeseen should oc¬
cur, or unless something urgent should
be presented to the Senate for action.
After disposing of the bills to which I
have referred, I believe it was the
thought of the Senator from Kentucky
that the Senate would be in recess until
after November 7.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. If that is the pro¬
gram, and if that plan is to be followed,
I, for one, would like to see those meas¬
ures made a special order of business im¬
mediately following the reconvening of
the Senate after November 7. River
and harbor and flood-control legislation
is imperative. The bills must not be per¬
mitted to die on the calendar. We are
imdertaking to enact bills providing
huge funds for unemployment compen¬
sation. Our first duty is to provide em¬
ployment: and if we fail in our duty
to enact constructive measures which
would be beneficial to the Nation, and
which would develop our resources, then
we must take the responsibility for hav¬
ing to provide what I should regard in
many cases as unnecessary unemploy¬
ment compensation — unnecessary be¬
cause of our failure to meet our obliga¬
tions to provide for public- works proj¬
ects which would enhance the wealth of
the Nation.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I find
myself very much in accord with what
the Senator from Arkansas has said.
The point which he makes is very well
taken. We are undertaking to provide
employment in the post-war period.
Both the measures to which I refer pro¬
vide for employment in connection with
river and harbor and flood- control proj¬
ects, even before the cessation of hostili¬
ties, under certain circumstances with
which Senators who have read the bills
are familiar. It is not necessary for me
to go into them.
It has been said that there is one con¬
troversial item in the bills. There are
two or three controversial items. In view
of that fact, I think it is very important
that a day certain be set, if possible, for
the Senate to proceed to the considera¬
tion of the bills.
I realize the situation in which the able
Senator from Alabama and the distin¬
guished Senator from Kentucky, the ma¬
jority leader, find themselves. Realizing
what the situation it, I do not feei that
I could successfully oppose the suggestion
to take up both bills after November 7;
but if possible I should like to have a day
fixed for their consideration.
Mr. • HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I find myself very much in
accord with the sentiment expressed by
the Senator from Arkansas and the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana, namely, that these
bills must not be permitted to die on the
calendar. They must be acted upon by
the Senate, with final action by the Con¬
gress during the present session of Con¬
gress.
The Senator from Kentucky will un¬
doubtedly return to the city shortly. The
Senate will be in session, considering the
war property disposal bill and the George
bill, for some days to come. I think it is
very probable that the Senator from Loui¬
siana and the Senator from Arkansas can
reach some understanding with the Sen¬
ator from Kentucky to fix a day certain
for the consideration of those bills.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. The Senator from Loui¬
siana was good enough to express an
interest in my view about the situation,
and I am very glad to state my present
view.
I believe that for the immediate pres¬
ent the situation is substantially as the
Senator from Alabama has stated. We
have pending two measures of great im¬
portance having to do with reconversion
and post-war problems. One is pending
before a Senate committee and will soon
be reported to the Senate. The other
is pending in a committee of the House
and I am advised that it will be reported
to the House in a very short time, per¬
haps within 2 or 3 days. If my judg¬
ment about the situation is good, I think
it will be at least 2 weeks before the
two measures to which I have referred,
which have to do with the post-war pe¬
riod, are ultimately disposed of. In my
view it would be quite impossible to deal
with the river and harbor bill, the flood
control bill, or the highway bill within
that time. I believe that we should wait
until the pending legislation is out of the
way before we undertake to come to any
conclusions about new legislation.
There is some question as to whether
these subject matters ought to be dealt
with separately, or whether, instead,
there should be an over-all public works
program which would embody the vari¬
ous proposals for flood control, highways,
and river and harbor improvements, and
possibly other opportunities to provide
work to those who may need work in the
post-war days. Some Senators have
that view about the matter. I am not
sure that they are not correct. But
certainly the river and harbor bill
and the flood control bill have in them
much of a controversial nature. We
cannot take up those measures im¬
mediately. When the immediate pres¬
sure is released, and when we shall have
disposed of the pending post-war prob¬
lems so far as legislation can dispose
of them, I expect that we shall have
a very meager attendance in this body,
and perhaps no attendance at all in the
other body until the election is out of
the way.
So if I may presume to offer advice,
it is that the matter be allowed to re¬
main as it now is until we shall have
reconvened after the election. We can
then determine, in the light of the cir¬
cumstances at that time, what ought to
be done about those measures.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I feel
some concern over the statement made
by the Senator from Maine. He indi¬
cates that probably we ought to allow
the river and harbor bill and the flood-
control bill, which have been on the cal¬
endar for some time, to go over until
legislation can be prepared in reference
to other public works and improvements,
so that the various subjects may be taken
up either in one grand and glorious bill,
or considered one after the other. Both
these bills are ready for action.
Mr. WHITE. I stated I believed there
was a substantial view of that sort in
this body.
Mr. OVERTON. I do not wish for a
moment to appear to lend any counte¬
nance to that view, because I think it is
wholly fallacious.
Mr. CONNALLY and Mr. VANDEN-
BERG addressed the chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Does the Senator from Louisiana
yield, and if so, to whom?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield first to the
Senator from Texas.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I
congratulate the Senator from Louisi¬
ana on his anxiety and his efforts to
obtain consideration for these bills. I
realize the difficulties suggested by the
Senator from Alabama; but it seems to
me that these bills ough' not to be de¬
ferred or sidetracked until some more
comprehensive public-works bill, as sug¬
gested by the Senator from Maine, may
be brought forth. There is an element
of public employment involved in both
measures. The bills have been well con¬
sidered. My State is deeply interested
in both of them. I hope the Senator
from Louisiana may be successful in ob¬
taining as early consideration as possi¬
ble under the circumstances. I merely
wish to reenforce what he has said.
Mr. OVERTON. I thank the Senator.
I now yield to the Senator from Mich¬
igan.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
the Senator well knows that in discussing
this question we confront a condition,
and not a theory. One of the con¬
troversies involved in the river and har¬
bor bill, the Missouri Valley controversy,
monopolized the attention of his own
committee for 2 or 3 weeks, almost day
and night. I anticipate that it will be
7254 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE August 22
equally monopolizing when it reaches the
attention of the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. I hope not.
Mr. VANDENBERG. In addition, the
Senator from Vermont [Mr. Aiken] has
given notice that he intends to attach
the St. Lawrence seaway project to the
river and harbor bill. I do not need to
remind Senators that that would require
at least a day or two of discussion.
Under the circumstances, it seems to
me that the Senator must find 5 or 6 clear
weeks before he can hope to have his
river and harbor bill reach a conclu¬
sion, unless the Missouri River problem
and the Central Valley problem in Cali¬
fornia can be compromised on some
amicable basis before we begin.
There are many things in the river
and harbor bill which I cordially agree
ought to be acted upon. There are other
things in the river and harbor bill which,
in my opinion, ought to be thrown out
the window. But in striving to antici¬
pate a program, I respectfully suggest to
the Senator that as things now stand, it
will be exceedingly difficult to reach a
conclusion in respect to the river and
harbor bill unless there is a very sub¬
stantial amount of time available f^'r dis¬
cussion.
Mr. OVERTON. I thank the Senator
for reenforcing my argument. The
sooner we get to both bills, the better it
will be, for the reasons he stated.
I promised to yield to the Senator
from Ohio [Mr. Burton]. I am very
glad to yield to him. He has been a very
helpful and industrious member of the
subcommittee which attended the hear¬
ings, and was in daily attendance and
gave very careful thought to every proj¬
ect in the bill. I now yield to him.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, it is as
a member of the subcommittee that I
wish to say just a word, because it seems
to me that here we have two well-
thought-out programs for post-war
work. There is no question that in both
bills there is a great volume of instances
with respect to which the engineers have
approved and worked out programs
which will be of constructive value to
the Nation. Under those circumstances
it would be tragic if there were delay in
approving this valuable program, and if
we were to go ahead with something less
valuable. It would be even more tragic
if we failed entirely to adopt any pro¬
gram of river and harbor improvement
and flood control. Therefore, I am in
entire agreement with the Senator from
Louisiana in urging the earliest possible
consideration of both these bills, and as
separate bills.
It seems to me that while there are
controversies as to the rivers and harbors
bill, they relate only to particular proj¬
ects in it. It will not take long to dis¬
pose of that particular bill.
As to the flood-control bill, I believe it
will take considerable time to dispose of
it unless some compromise can be
reached on the Missouri River project.
But I believe the intervening time can
well be spent in attempting to reach
agreement on that.
Therefore, I hope it will be possible to
work out an agreement as to the time
when these two important bills can be
considered and acted upon. I agree that
a deflnite date should be set down for
bringing up the river and harbor bill
first, if possible, because I believe these
national projects should be approved,
and that the projects should be ready to
be put into operation at the earliest pos¬
sible date when they shall be needed.
There are so many projects which are not
worth spending money on that it seems
to me these projects, which have the
benefit of approval by the Army engi¬
neers and which have been favorably
acted upon by the House, and are ready
for action by the Senate, should be
promptly acted on by the Senate. The
Senate should not be the body which
fails to provide for valuable and desir¬
able post-war projects of that kind.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. GURNEY. The Senator from
Louisiana has correctly stated my view.
Coming from the Missouri River region,
as I do, I know that the people there are
interested in both the river and harbor
bill and the flood-control bill, as is evU
denced by a resolution adopted by the
Governors of nine States, in meeting at
Omaha, Nebr., on August 5 and 6. With
the Senator’s permission, I should like to
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record at this point the resolution
adopted by the Governors of the Mis¬
souri River States.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection?
There being no objection, the resolu¬
tion was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
RESOLUTION OP THE MISSOURI RIVER STATES
COMMITTEE TO SECURE A BASIN-WIDE DE¬
VELOPMENT PLAN
We, the Governors of the States In the Mis¬
souri River Basin, namely; Colorado, Wyo¬
ming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri, and
the members of the Missouri River States
Committee, meeting at Omaha, Nebr., on
August 5 and 6, 1944, after hearing and con¬
ferring with representatives of various Fed¬
eral agencies. Including the United States
Army Engineer Corps and the United States
Bureau of Reclamation, do now firmly and
earnestly petition the President and Con¬
gress of the United States to give force and
effect to the following conclusions:
1. That in dealing with matters relating
to the waters of the Missouri River Basin it
be recognized that we are dealing with one
river and one problem.
2. That in approaching that problem and
In order to serve all the people of the basin
to the maximum possible degree and to safe¬
guard their present established rights and
th''ir future development and prosperity,
there can be no piecemeal legislative pro¬
gram.
3. That there must be an over-all compre¬
hensive plan and suitable legislation adopted
by the Congress of the United States which
will accomplish that purpose.
4. That the omnibus flood-control bill, in¬
sofar as it deals with the Missouri River,
furnishes the framework for flood control
and related purposes.
6. That authorization of the Bureau of
Reclamation plan now before Congress and
embodied in the Senate Document 191, Sev¬
enty-eighth Congress, second session, is nec¬
essary to a comprehensive development of the
Missouri River Basin.
6. That those provisions of the Rivers and
Harbors omnibus bill which relate to naviga¬
tion on the Missouri River below Sioux City,
Iowa, vitally affect the economic life and
plans for future development of the entire
Missouri River Basin.
7. That to develop the basin fully and for
the greatest benefit of its citizens, both pres¬
ent and future, and for the greatest benefit
to the United States of America, the Con¬
gress of the United States should recognize
now the problem in its entirety as it affects
the people of the Missouri Basin and their
economic destiny and that of the United
States of America.
8. That In order to accomplish this unity
of purpose and action we ask the President
and the Congress of the United States to au¬
thorize and direct the United States Army
engineers and the United States Bureau of
Reclamation to bring before the Congress
a coordinated plan, based on the proposed
legislation and oiflcial documents heretofore
mentioned which will make possible the au¬
thorization by the Congress, now, of the
Missouri River basin development program
In its entirety by such amendments to legis¬
lation now pending as are feasible from the
standpoint of legislative procedures.
The foregoing was unanimously adopted by
the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, and Missouri. The representatives
of the State of Iowa being absent at the time,
the vote of that State was not recorded.
Thereupon the meeting considered the
following statement:
Nothing done in the interests of flood con¬
trol or navigation shall adversely affect the
use of water for irrigation west of the ninety-
seventh meridian.
This statement was agreed to by the States
of Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Da¬
kota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
The representatives of the State of Iowa
being absent, the vote of that State was
not recorded. The State of Missouri being
present and represented did not choose to
join in the last-mentioned statement.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WHERRY. I should also like to
commend the Senator from Louisiana
for his interest in the matter of having
both these bills taken up for early con¬
sideration. I endorse what he said; and
because I come from a section of the
country which is vitally interested in
both bills, I, too, should like to have a
definite date set, if possible, for their
consideration.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
should like to suggest to the acting ma¬
jority leader, the junior Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Hill], that we might
tentatively agree on some date in Novem¬
ber. I assure him that if on account of
much more pressing legislation those
bills could not be taken up then, I should
be very glad indeed to cooperate, as I
have always endeavored to do. But the
people of my State and a number of
Senators — in fact, practically all of
them — are very anxious to know defi¬
nitely, if they can, when this proposed
legislation will be considered.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I will say
to the Senator that if he will be patient
for a day or two, I am quite certain the
distinguished majority leader, the
Senator from Kentucky, will be back, and
at that time I will be glad to join with
him in an effort to make certain that
these bills are passed during this session
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
7255
1944
of Congress, and that final congressional
action is taken on them, so that they
may become law during the present
session. I shall be glad to join with
the Senator in that effort.
Mi\ OVERTON. I thank the Senator.
INTERNATIONAL PEACE MACHINERY—
THE DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, on
yesterday there convened at Washing¬
ton^ at Dumbarton Oaks, a notable in¬
ternational conference. Representa¬
tives of the United States, Russia, and
Great Britain have met in what may be
called exploratory conversations respect¬
ing the structure of international peace
machinery to effect what we hope will
affect all the nations of the earth, the
great nations as well as the small ones.
Mr. President, it is somewhat difficult
to realize the tremendous significance of
such a meeting. Personally, I think we
stand at the crossroads. I think the
outcome of this conference will mean
either that we shall go forward in the
establishment of peace machinery or
that we shall miserably fail in one of the
greatest undertakings with which the
Nation has ever been confronted.
The story of the efforts of the United
States toward world peace afford an in¬
teresting background of what is now
presented. Recently I have been reading
about the establishment of what was
known as the League to Enforce Peace,
which antedated the World War. Some
of the most notable men in the United
States took part in the establishment of
that organization. It did a great deal
toward crystallizing public sentiment
and stimulating thought along the lines
of what was called an enforced peace.
I shall not dwell upon the transactions
of 1919 and 1920. I believe that all the
world has now come to the conclusion
that unless we are to look forward in the
next generation to another world war,
brought on by ambition, resentment, an¬
ger, and hatred, perhaps on the part of
those who may be conquered in the pend¬
ing war — unless we wish to look forward
to that kind of eventuality it behooves
the people of the United States and of
all the world, for that matter, whole¬
heartedly to join in the effort to create,
establish, and maintain international
peace machinery.
Mr. President, we cannot, of course,
hope to create an agency which will be
pleasing to everyone in all its details.
Some will take exception to this, that, or
the other. That would not be unnatural.
When the Constitution of the United
States was established there was dis¬
agreement over some of its provisions.
There were notable contests in the con¬
ventions of several States over the rati¬
fication or nonratification of the product
of the Convention of 1787. I recall that
in the Virginia convention great figures
like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and
others resisted ratification, and it was
finally achieved by a margin of only 10
votes. The same situation prevailed in
the conventions of some of the other
States.
So, Mr. President, as we approach the
work of the present conference which, in
the course of due time, will be followed
by another conference on a higher level,
I hope the people of the United States,
and particularly Members of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives, will
work together in peace and in unity,
looking forward to the larger concept of
the organization.
As chairman of the Committee on For¬
eign Relations I wish to pay my sincere
tribute to the Republican members of the
committee for their approach to the
present problem. There was no evidence
of partisanship in the work which they
have done. There was no evidence of
pettifoggery. There was no disposition
to inject matters of factional or partisan
consideration.
The subcommittee of the Committee
on Foreign Relations was composed of
the chairman, the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. George], the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Thomas], the Senator from Ken¬
tucky [Mr. Barkley], the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. Gillette], the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette], the Sena¬
tor from Michigan [Mr. Vandenberg],
and the Senator from Maine [Mr.
White]. I am deeply grateful to each
member for their patriotic and arduous
labors in conference with the Secretary
of State and in committee. I particularly
wish to express my sense of gratitude
to the Senators who represented the mi¬
nority on the subcommittee of the Com¬
mittee on Foreign Relations. For ap¬
proximately 6 months they labored in
framing and presenting to the Senate
the resolution which was adopted by the
Senate on November 5, 1943. Irrespec¬
tive of party aflBliations, that resolution
has met with widespread approval
throughout the United States. It does
not, of course, undertake to go into all
the details, activities, and aspects of the
proposed organization, but in a large
way it lays before the people of the
United States and of the world the basic
structure and considerations which such
an organization should embrace.
I wish also to pay my respects to those
Republicans who in the Mackinac reso¬
lution at an early date labored well and
handsomely toward creating what, ac¬
cording to their minds, was a workable
and satisfactory structure of a peace
organization.
Mr. President, I wish also to express my
deep sense of gratitude to the Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. La Follette], the
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Vanden¬
berg], and the minority leader, the Sen¬
ator from Maine [Mr. White.] They
were members of the subcommittee to
which I have made reference, and they
labored long and arduously. The Sena¬
tor from Vermont [Mr. Austin] also par¬
ticipated in conferences with the Secre¬
tary of State. He is now a useful mem¬
ber of the committee.
In addition to the work which was
performed in the Committee on Foreign
Relations and in the subcommittee of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, al¬
most weekly during a period of nearly
a year we consulted with the Secretary
of State in regard to the approaching
difficulties which were to be presented.
In all those conferences there was no
partisanship; there was no effort to ob¬
tain a partisan advantage; and there
was no effort to waylay and attack from
the flank anything which we were un¬
dertaking to do.
So, Mr. President, I hope that the spirit
which I have attempted to describe may
continue. I am sure that it will continue.
I wish to express my sense of appre¬
ciation to the authors of the original so-
called BjHa resolution. Senate Resolu¬
tion 114. I wish particularly to pay my
sincere appreciation to those Senators
because I realize their sincerity and their
earnestness. While the subcommittee
did not wholly agree with the resolution
in its essential details, it did agree with
the great objective which the sponsors
of the resolution had in mind. There
was no difference in the ambition of any
of us to bring about one great concrete
result, namely, the creation of an instru¬
mentality by which questions could be
tested not by swords and cannon, but by
logic and reason. In the event a decision
were to be made that there must be no
aggression by those who would seek by
force of arms and might to overrun their
peaceful neighbors, it was intended that
an organization should be created which
would have sufficient power and force to
prevent the conditions against which we
were inveighing.
I believe that by now practically all
elements of our people have arrived at
the opinion that an international organi¬
zation must be endowed with a sufficient
armed force — naval and military — to
prevent the occurrences which have re¬
sulted in this terrible and tragic war.
Mr. President, the three great coun¬
tries which, through their representa¬
tives, are now holding conferences have,
of course, been in conference over a con¬
siderable period of time by personal con¬
tact as well as by correspondence. It is
very gratifying to witness the fine spirit
which seems to actuate them at the
present moment. A little later repre¬
sentatives of China will be called into
conference. After the preliminary con¬
versations shall have come to an end a
conference on a higher level will be con¬
vened, and in due time representatives
of all the people of the nations of the
world, however small their territories
may be, however weak their arms may
be, will be called into conference in
order that the small nations shall have a
voice and a representation in the peace
machinery. After all, Mr. President, the
small and weak nations are the ones
which will receive the greatest benefits
from such an organization as the one
being proposed. As a rule they are more
often attacked by the more powerful, the
more aggressive, and those who are am¬
bitious to achieve military mastery, than
are the great and strong powers.
Mr. President, in the liquidation of this
war after it shall have come to an end
it will not be practicable immediately to
conclude a treaty of peace. Pending a
definite treaty of peace it may be nece^
sary for the four great powers partici¬
pating on the Allied side to maintain con¬
tact and concert of action in bringing
about control and supeiwision in enemy
countries. We cannot permit chaos and
anarchy to break out in any of the
countries which have been overrun and
occupied. We cannot permit those coa-
No. 133 - 2
7256
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
August 22
ditions to obtain even in the enemy coun¬
tries. So far as the war itself is con¬
cerned the great powers must continue
to act in harmony. It does not follow,
however, as a result that the permanent
peace structure which we hope to set up
will in any way be modified.
Mr. President, I am sure that Secre¬
tary Hull and those associated with him
in this enterprise welcome conferences
with any one who has a thought to sug¬
gest and who will come to them in a
spirit of helpfulness and cooperation. I
am sure that that is their attitude. It is
the attitude of our Committee on For¬
eign Relations and its subcommittee.
We want suggestions from any source,
provided they come in a spirit of helpful¬
ness and not in one of enmity and .a de¬
termination to obstruct the processes of
the conference.
So the prospects of the conference’s
successful outcome are very propitious,
indeed. There seems to prevail a spirit
of cooperation, of good will, and a desire
to unite in the creation of the peace
structure.
Mr. President, I do not think, however,
that our people should be led to the con¬
clusion that this war is already over, be¬
cause it is not. While reports from the
battlefields of Europe have been very im¬
pressive and inspiring, while they have
offered much hope of an early termina¬
tion of the war, we cannot afford to relax
one inch; we cannot let anything cause
us to recede from the aggressive militant
spirit that will be required to win this
war. We hope in due course, however, to
establish an agency which will offer hope
to the peoples of the earth, which will
offer hope to the small and the weak na¬
tions, which will offer hope to the nations
who entertain peaceful ambitions, and
will offer condemnation to nations that
entertain visions of conquest of their
neighbors or the. overrunning of the
world and the establishment of military
monarchies.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from Ohio.
Mr. TAFT. The Senator is chairman
of a committee of the House and Senate,
I think, which has been conferring with
Secretary Hull regarding the general
character of the post-war peace organi¬
zation?
Mr. CONNALLY. I will say to the Sen¬
ator that I am not chairman of the joint
committee. I am chairman of the For¬
eign Relations Committee of the Senate,
but groups from both House and the Sen¬
ate for over a considerable period have
conferred with Secretary Hull.
Mr. TAFT. I was only interested to
know whether that committee is sitting
in on the Dumbarton Oaks Conference
or whether they are keeping in touch
with it or keeping advised of it, or what
the status is. What is the relation of
the committee created by Congress with
the present Dumbarton Oaks Confer¬
ence?
Mr. CONNALLY. The present con¬
ference does not include members of
the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate or of the House of Represent¬
atives. The present group is more of a
meeting of technicians concerned with
the physical integration of what the
larger policy that is indicated to them
might be. However, I shall say to the
Senator from Ohio that I have had up
with the Secretary of State the matter
of oiu: being kept informed, and I have
assurances that daily, if necessary, and
from time to time the Committee on
Foreign Relations will be kept advised
of the progress of these negotiations
and of any matter of sufficient im¬
portance to attract the attention of
the committee. Does that answer the
Senator?
Mr. TAFT. Yes. . In a way, then, the
committee is on a higher level than those
who are conferring; and when the con¬
ference reaches a higher level, then the
committee of the Senate will participate.
Mr. CONNALLY. I do not know that
that is true. The Senator is aware of
the fact, of course, that in the United
States the custom has always been for
the Executive to handle the negotiations
and that the matters were simply sub¬
mitted to the Senate at a later time. I
wish to say to the Senator that Mr. Hull
and his associates have not taken that
position. They have evidenced a desire
to have the cooperation of and to co¬
operate with the Senate, and while we
perhaps may not be members even of the
higher level, it might overbalance the
representation from other countries if
that happened — we will be kept advised ;
we will have access to the Secretary of
State, and, if necessary, to other func¬
tionaries connected with the matter. I
have no fear that there will be any sort
of ignoring of the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
may I say a word at that point?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from Michigan.
Mr. VANDENBERG. I think I owe it
to the Secretary of State to add at this
point that he personally communicated
with me, representing the minority group
of the special committee, and personally
placed at my disposal any information I
may seek at any time regarding any
phase of the Dumbarton Oaks confer¬
ence.
Mr. CONNALLY. I shall say to the
Senator from Ohio supplementing what
the Senator from Michigan has said,
that he called the subcommittee into
conference and handed each one of its
members a complete draft of what was
in his mind as to the general structure of
the peace organization. It was confi¬
dential; it was not given to the public;
but I simply cite that fact to show the
evidence of entire willingness to keep the
Senate advised and to take us into con¬
fidence.
Mr. TAFT. I was only interested in
determining what the exact status was.
While I am on my feet, however, I
should like to ask the Senator one other
question. I was somewhat alarmed to
read in the New York Times of Friday,
August 18, what purports to be an inter¬
view with our Ambassador, Mr. W. Ave-
rell Harriman. There he is cited by a
Polish newspaper in regard to a confer¬
ence held with the Polish committee
which was set up under the auspices of
the Russian Government. I quote from
the article:
It cites Mr. Harriman’s declaration to the
Polish National Cduncil’s representatives that
the “alliance between the United States of
America and the United Soviet Socialist
Republics is fli-m and is expected to endure
for decades.”
I wonder if the Senator could tell me
whether there is any such alliance or
whether that is a misquotation of the
Ambassador’s statement.
Mr. CONNALLY. I think that is a
rhetorical flourish on the part of the
Ambassador,
Mr. TAFT. The Senator thinks there
is no alliance?
Mr. CONNALLY. There is no alliance
in the sense of any treaty or any binding
commitment. I think what he means
there is that as a result of this war our
relations have been drawn much more
closely together and that the unity and
harmony to wind up the war and to liqui¬
date it will probably be extended to the
future.
Mr. TAFT. The Senator feels confi¬
dent that there is no alliance of any kind,
secret or otherwise?
Mr. CONNALLY. We have the assur¬
ance from the highest possible sources
that there were no commitments what¬
ever made at Moscow, Tehran, Cairo, or
Casablanca that will be binding on this
Government.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a moment? .
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.
Mr. HATCH. I have been very much
interested in what the Senator has had
to say with regard to the relations of the
Secretary of State with the committees
of Congress on this all-important and
vital subject because I think that rela¬
tionship itself may well spell the success
or failure of any plan; and, from what I
have heard said here, I take it that the
attitude of the Secretary of State is not
one of ignoring the Congress, but, on the
other hand, there may be said to be a
sincere attitude of complete cooperation
with the appropriate committees of the
Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. CONNALLY. I think the Senator
has stated it accurately.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Does the Senator from Texas
yield to the Senator from Florida?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.
Mr. PEPPER. I have been one of
those who have heard from time to time
with great interest and appreciation the
statements which have been made on the
floor by the able chairman of the For¬
eign Relations Committee [Mr. Con-
NALLY], and I have heard with approval
his generous references to the attitude
of Senators on the other side of the aisle.
However, the inquiry which was made
a moment ago by the able Senator from
Ohio [Mr. Taft] and the history of this
body in respect to international agree¬
ments leads one to be concerned as to
whether or not before we come to the
point of decision on these matters we
have perfected the machinery and the
1
1
1
i
■j
1
\
{
78th CONGKESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IX THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
August 28 (legislative clay, August 15), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to Ite proposed by jMr. jVrEAD to the bill (H. II. 4485)
autliorlzino- the construetion of certain ])nblie works on
rivers and harbors for flood eoiitrol, and for other ])iirposes,
viz: On page 38, after line 20, insert the following:
1 Buffalo Creek and tributaries. New York, for flood con-
2 trol and with a view to providing a source of domestic water
3 supply for Lockport and other communities.
8-28-44 - A
$
a
<v
(T>
Cj
>
d
o
d
OQ
ro
cc
O)
°s.
p
cr
(D
p
O'
p
p
D
Di
O'
a>
>
d
o
d
GQ
H
(V>
d-
CD
CD
o
h-
C/i
O
i-b
Cl,
Hb
O
W
O
CD
r
db
P
o
d*
o
1—'
00
3
O ■
»— y
Ot
o
O
W
d
'
d:?
Q
o
cr
p
C/3
d
p
CD
o'
r^
P-
a
o
dd
O
2.
cr
P
n'
d
Oj
C/3
t— 1 •
p
crq
Hb
o
O
rt-.
Q
^-3
CD
CD
hy
Cfi
O
o
>
P
S
>-3
p
c/3
o
T5
P
3
3
d
P
d
1
o.
O
1
P^
CD
>
PI
Z
D
PI
Z
H
X/1
U1
5:
?o
•
4^
4^
00
ca
t
K
f
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 8 (legislative day, September 1), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Aiken to the bill (H. E. 4485)
authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, viz:
1 On page 10, lines 4 and 5, strike out high dam at
2 the Williamsville site” and insert in lieu tliereof ‘‘a dam on
3 the main stream of the West Eiver in tlie towns of Dum-
4 merston or Newfane in the State of Vermont”.
9-8-44 - D
i
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
supra, which was ordered to lie on the
table and to be printed.
RIVER AND HARBOR FLOOD-CONTROL
WORKS— AMENDMENT
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I ask con¬
sent to submit an amendment which I
intend to propose to House bill 4485
authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for
flood control, and for other purposes, and
ask to have it printed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amend¬
ment will be received, lie on the table,
and be printed.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, the
amendment would eliminate from the
bill authorization for the construction of
a dam near the mouth of the West River
in Vermont. I wish it to be understood
that in submitting the amendment I am
not expressing opposition to the flood-
control bill as a whole or to the general
program of flood control. In the case of
the dam proposed for the West River,
however, in my opinion the amount of
benefit derived v/ould be far exceeded by
the damage caused by the destruction of
one of New England’s finest and poten¬
tially richest valleys. It is most unfor¬
tunate that there is insistence upon this
particular dam when by constructing
three or four smaller dams the same
amount of protection could be afforded
the people living in the Connecticut Val¬
ley, and also protection for the people
living in the West River Valley itself.
I wish to say further that when the
flood-control bill is taken up for action
I shall oppose the committee amendment
on page 10, which reads as follows:
Provided, further, That none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shall be utilized for the generation of
hydroelectric power.
Undoubtedly there may be constructed
some dams from which the development
of electric power will not be warranted,
but at other dams power may be devel¬
oped for the benefit of the communities
where they are located. I feel that we
should not include in any flood-control
program a rigid restriction against the
development of power.
INFANTILE PARALYSIS 'AND ENCEPHALI¬
TIS-AMENDMENT
Mr. DANGER. Mr. President, I ask
consent to submit an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, which I intend to
propose to Senate Joint Resolution 147,
which I introduced last week, to provide
for the general welfare by investigations
into the causes and cures of infantile
paralysis and encephalitis.
I may state briefly that of the $10,000,-
000 proposed to be appropriated by the
joint resolution the amendment would
provide that $1,000,000 shall be used for
the establishment in the District of Co¬
lumbia of an infantile paralysis clinic to
be operated by Sister Elizabeth Kenny
under the supervision of the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service.
My whole idea is, Mr. President, that
all the forces that are now combating
infantile paralysis shall be united in one
strong unified fight against infantile
paralysis and encephalitis.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amend¬
ment submitted by the Senator from
North Dakota will be received, referred
to the Committee on Education and La¬
bor, and printed.
TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OP
BOARD OP ACTUARIES OP THE CIVIL
SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
FUND (S. DOC. NO. 233)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. In his capacity as a Senator, the
present occupant of the chair, on behalf
of the Senator from California [Mr.
Downey], asks unanimous consent that
the report of the Board of Actuaries of
the Civil Service Commission trans¬
mitted to the Senate on August 15, 1944,
be printed as a Senate document. The
Chair imderstands it has been the cus¬
tom to print such reports when received.
Is there objection?
There being no objection, the report
was ordered to be printed as a Senate
document.
REMOVAL OF BAN OP SECRECY FROM
DOUBLE TAXATION CONVENTION WITH
CANADA
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent, as in executive ses¬
sion, that the ban of secrecy be removed
from Executive G, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, a convention be¬
tween the United States of America and
Canada for the avoidance of double taxa¬
tion and the prevention of fiscal evasion
in the case of estate taxes and succession
duties, signed in Ottawa on June 8, 1944.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, and, as in ex¬
ecutive session, it is so ordered.
The convention was made public, as
follows :
The Government of the United States of
America and the Government of Canada,
being desirous of avoiding double taxation
and of preventing fiscal evasion in the case of
estate taxes and succession duties, have de¬
cided to conclude a Convention and for that
purpose have appointed as their Plenipo¬
tentiaries ;
Ray Atherton, Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America at Ottawa, for the United States of
America: and
W. L. Mackenzie King, Secretary of State
for External Affairs, and Colin W. G. Gibson,
Minister of National Revenue, for Canada.
Who, having communicated to one another
their full powers found in good and due
form, have agreed upon the following Ar¬
ticles :
ARTICLE 1
1. The taxes referred to in this Conven¬
tion are:
(a) for the United States of America: the
Federal estate taxes:
(b) for Canada: the taxes imposed under
the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
2. In the event of appreciable changes in
the fiscal laws of either contracting State,
the competent authorities of the contracting
States will consult together.
ARTICLE n
1. Real property situated in Canada shall
be exempt from the application of the taxes
Imposed by the United States of America.
2. Real property situated in the United
States of Arnerica shall be exempt from the
application of the taxes imposed by Canada.
3. The question whether rights relating to
or secured by real property are to be consld-
7707
ered as real property for the purposes of this
Convention shall be determined in accord¬
ance with the laws of the contracting State
Imposing the tax.
ARTICLE in
1. Shares in a corporation organized in or
under the laws of the United States of Amer¬
ica, of any of the states or territories of the
United States of America, or of the District
of Columbia, shall be deemed to be property
situated within the United States of America.
2. Shares in a corporation organized in or
under the laws of Canada, or of any of the
provinces or territories of Canada, shall be
deemed to be property situated within
Canada.
3. This Article shall not be construed as
limiting the liability of the estate of any
person not domiciled in Canada or of any
citizen of the United States of America,
under the estate tax laws of the United
States of America.
ARTICLE IV
1. The situs of property shall be deter¬
mined in accordance with the laws of the
contracting State imposing the tax, except
as otherwise provided in this Convention.
2. Allowance for debts shall be determined
in accordance with the laws of the contract¬
ing State imposing the tax.
3. Domicile shall be determined in accord¬
ance with the laws of the contracting State
imposing the tax.
ARTICLE V
1. In the case of a decedent who at the
time of his death was a citizen of, or domi¬
ciled in, the United States of America, the
United States of America may include in the
gross estate any property (other than real
property) situated in Canada as though this
Convention had not come into effect.
2. In the case of a decedent (other than a
citizen of the United States of America) who
at the time of his death was domiciled in
Canada, the United States of America shall,
in imposing the taxes to which this Con¬
vention relates;
(a) take into account only property situ¬
ated in the United States of America: and
(b) allow as an exemption an amount
v/hich bears the same ratio to the personal
exemption allowed in the case of a decedent
who was at the time of his death a citizen
of, or domiciled in, the United States of
America as the value of the property of such
decedent situated in the United States of
America bears to the value of the property
included in the entire gross estate of the
decedent.
3. In the case of a decedent who at the
time of his death was domiciled in Canada,
Canada may include in the gross estate any
property (other than real property) situated
in the United States of America as though
this Convention had not come into effect.
4. In the case of a decedent who at the
time of his death was domiciled in the
United States of America, Canada shall, in
imposing the taxes to which this Conven¬
tion relates:
(a) take into account only property situ¬
ated in Canada: and
(b) allow as an exemption an amount
which bears the same ratio to the personal
exemption allowed in the case of a decedent
who was at the time of his death domiciled
in Canada as the value of the property of
such decedent situated in Canada bears to
the entire value of the property, wherever
situated.
ARTICLE VI
1. In the case of a decedent who at the
time of his death was a citizen of or domi¬
ciled in the United States of America, the
United States of America shall impose the
estate taxes to which this Convention relates
upon the following conditions:
(a) In respect of property situated in Can¬
ada which, for the purpose of estate taxes,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
September 8
7708
Is included in the gross estate, less such
property as is specifically deducted therefrom
(either because of transfer for public, charita¬
ble, educational, religious or similar uses or
because the property has been previously
taxed under provisions of law relating to
property previously taxed) , there shall be
allowed against the estate taxes a credit for
Canadian succession taxes in respect of the
property situated in Canada, the situs of such
property being determined in accordance
with the laws of Canada, subject to the
provisions of this Convention.
(b) The portion of the Canadian succes¬
sion taxes to be allowed as a credit against
United States estate taxes shall be an amount
which bears the same ratio to the total Ca¬
nadian succession taxes as the’ value of the
property situated in Canada and with respect
to which estate taxes are imposed by the
United States of America bears to the total
value of the property with respect to which
succession taxes are imposed by Canada.
(c) The credit in any such case shall not
exceed an amount which bears the same ratio
to such estate taxes, computed without the
credit provided for herein, as the value of the
property situated in Canada and not ex¬
cluded or deducted from the gross estate as
provided in (a) bears to the value of the en¬
tire gross estate.
(d) The values referred to in (c) are the
values determined by the United States of
America for the purpose of estate taxes.
(e) The credit provided for herein shall
apply after the application of section 813 (b)
of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended
by the Revenue Act of 1942.
2. In the case of a decedent who at the
time of his death was domiciled in Canada,
Canada shall impose the succession taxes to
which this Convention relates upon the fol¬
lowing conditions:
(a) In respect of property situated in the
United States of America which, for the pur¬
pose of succession taxes, is included in the
gross estate, less such property as is specifi¬
cally deducted therefrom (because of transfer
for charitable, educational, religious or sim¬
ilar uses), there shall be allowed against the
succession taxes a credit for United States
estate taxes in respect of the property sit¬
uated in the United States of America, the
situs of such property being determined in
accordance with the laws of the United States
of America, subject to the provisions of this
Convention.
(b) The portion of the United States es¬
tate taxes to be allowed as a credit against
Canadian succession taxes shall be an amount
which bears the same ratio to the total
United States estate taxes as the value of the
property situated in the United States of
America and with respect to which succession
taxes are imposed by Canada bears to the
total value of the property with respect to
which estate taxes are Imposed by the United
States of America.
(c) The credit in any such case shall not
exceed an amount which bears the same
ratio to such succession taxes, computed with¬
out the credit provided for herein, as the
value of the property situated in the United
States of America and not excluded or de¬
ducted from the gross estate as provided in
(a) bears to the entire value of the property,
wherever situated.
(d) The values referred to in (c) are the
values determined by Canada for the purpose
of succession taxes.
3. (a) The credit referred to in this Article
may be allowed by the United States of
America if claim therefor is filed within the
periods provided in section 813 (b) of the
Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
(b) The credit referred to in this Article
may be allowed by Canada if claim therefor
is filed within the period provided by sub¬
section 4 of section 35 of the Dominion Suc¬
cession Duty Act relating to refund of over¬
payment.
(c) A refund based on the credit may be
made if a claim therefor is filed within the
respective periods above provided.
(d) . Any refund based on the provisions of
this Article 6r any other 'provisions of this
Convention shall be made without interest.
ARTICLE vn
1. With a view to the prevention of fiscal
evasion each of the contracting States un¬
dertakes to furnish to the other contracting
State as provided in the succeeding Articles
of this Convention, the information which its
competent authorities have at their disposal
or are in a position to obtain under its rev¬
enue laws in so far as such information may
be of use to the authorities of the other con¬
tracting State in the assessment of the taxes
to which this Convention relates.
2. The information to be furnished under
this Article, whether in the ordinary course
or on request, may be exchanged directly be¬
tween the competent authorities of the two
contracting States.
ARTICLE VIII
1. The Commissioner shall notfy the Min¬
ister as soon as practicable when the Com¬
missioner ascertains that in the case of:
(a) a decedent, any part of whose estate is
subject to the Federal estate tax laws, there
is property of such decedent situated in
Canada;
(b) a decedent domiciled in Canada, any
part of whose estate is subject to the Domin¬
ion Succession Duty Act, there is property of
such decedent situated in the United States
of America.
2. The Minister shall notify the Commis¬
sioner as soon as practicable when the Min¬
ister ascertains that in the case of;
(a) a decedent, any part of whose estate
is subject to the Dominion Succession Duty
Act, there is property of such decedent situ¬
ated in the United States of America;
(b) a decedent domiciled in the United
States of America, any part of whose estate
is subjected to the Federal estate tax laws,
there is property of such decedent situated in
Canada.
ARTICLE IX
1. If the Minister deems it necessary to
obtain the cooperation of the Commissioner
in determination of the succession tax lia¬
bility of any person, the Commissioner may,
upon request, furnish the Minister such in¬
formation bearing upon the matter as the
Commissioner is entitled to obtain under the
revenue laws of the United States of America.
2. If the Commissioner deems it necessary
to obtain the cooperation of the Minister
in the determination of the estate tax lia¬
bility of any person, the Minister may, upon
request, furnish the Commissioner such in¬
formation bearing upon the matter as the
Minister is entitled to obtain under the rev¬
enue laws of Canada.
ARTICLE X
The competent authorities of the contract¬
ing States may:
(a) prescribe regulations to carry into
effect this Convention within the respective
States and rules with respect to the ex¬
change of information;
(b) if doubt arises, settle questions of in¬
terpretation or application of this Conven¬
tion by mutual agreement;
(c) communicate with each other directly
for the purpose of giving effect to the provi¬
sions of this Convention.
ARTICLE XI
If any fiduciary or beneficiary can show
that double taxation has resulted or may
result in respect of the taxes to which this
Convention relates, such fiduciary or bene¬
ficiary shall be entitled to lodge a claim or
protest with the St: te of citizenship or dom¬
icile of such fiduciary or beneficiary, or, if a
corporation or other entity, with the State in
which created or organized. If the claim or
protest should be deemed worthy of consid¬
eration,. the competent authority of such
State may consult with the competent au¬
thority of the other State to determine
whether the alleged double taxation exists or
may occur and if so whether it may be avoid¬
ed in accordance with the terms of this Con¬
vention.
ARTICLE XII
The provisions of this Convention shall not
be construed to restrict in any manner any
exemption, deduction, credit or other allow¬
ance accorded by the laws of one of the con¬
tracting States in the determination of the
tax Imposed by such State.
ARTICLE XIII
1. As used in this Convention:
(a) The term “Minister” means the Minis¬
ter of National Revenue of Canada or his duly
authorized representative.
(b) The term “Commissioner” means the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the
United States of America, or his duly au¬
thorized representative.
(c) The term “competent authority” or
“competent authorities” means the Commis¬
sioner and the Minister and their duly au¬
thorized representatives.
2. When used in a geographical sense:
(a) The term “United States of America”
Includes only the states, the Territory of
Alaska, the Territory of Hawaii, and the Dis¬
trict of Columbia.
(b The term “Canada” means the prov¬
inces, the territories and Sable Island.
ARTICLE XIV
1. This Convention shall be ratified and the
Instruments of ratification shall be ex¬
changed at Washington as soon as possible.
2. This Convention shall be deemed to
have come into effect on the fourteenth day
of June, 1941. It shall continue in effect for
a period of five years from that date and
indefinitely after that period, but may be
terminated by either of the contracting
States at the end of the five year period or
at any time thereafter provided that at least
six months prior notice of termination has
been given.
Done in duplicate, at Ottawa, this eighth
day of June, 1944.
Ray Atherton.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Colin Gibson.
OVERSEAS INTER-AMERICAN HIGHWAY
FROM KEY WEST, FLA.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. President, cere¬
monies were held recently at Key West
celebrating the completion of the over¬
seas highway from the mainland of
Florida to the island of Key West. A
large part of the causeway portion of the
Florida East Coast Railway extending
to Key West was destroyed or so badly
damaged as a railway by the big hurri¬
cane of 1935, that permission was
granted to abandon it. Soon thereafter,
there was established under Florida
statutes, the overseas highway district,
which issued bonds with which, together
with aid provided from the State of
Florida and the Federal Government,
it purchased, for less than $1,000,000
that portion of the Florida East
Coast Railroad extending from the
mainland to Key West. The original
construction had cost over $60,000,000.
Some of the finest engineering was
required to construct this overseas high¬
way on top of steel bridges and re¬
inforced concrete piers. This highway,
although not completed until this year,
aided greatly in our war effort during
the submarine menace, which hovered
1
78th CONGKESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITE]) STATES
September 15 (legislative clay, September 1), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
UiltMult'd to l)e ])ro])osod by Mr. Siitpstead to tlie l)ill (H. E.
4485) aitlliorizing’ tbo ooiisti’iiotioii of rertaiii ])ul)]if‘ works
on rival's and liariioi's for flood conti'ol, <;nd for oilier ])iir-
] loses, viz:
On page 40, lietween lines 3 and 4, insert a lU'w seetion
2 as follows:
3 ‘‘Sec. . The Board of Engineers for Eivers and
4 Harbors, created under section 3 of the Eiver and Harbor
5 Act, axiprovcd June 13, 1902, is hereby authorized and
6 directed to review the report on the Mississippi Eiver be-
7 tween Sandy Lake and Brainerd, Minnesota, submitted in
8 House Hocnment Numbered 113, Fifty-sixth Congress,
9 second session, and siibsetpient reports, with a view^ to
10 detei'ininina' whether anv modifications of the recommen-
11 dations therein are advisable at the nresent time.”
9-15-44 - B
%
U1
O ^
•~s
s g
6 S
Qi (s
® S
»—<
o crq
t= S'
i-t- j;
p- ^
a> “•
cr 9-
P3
3
cr*
(T>
rt*
^ 1-
Oj
CO
4^
^ P
c/:
C/5
CO
O
o*
^3
(0
o
yj
H-b
o
3:
o
o
o
o
p
f-h
•-s
o
rV
Hb
o
M CT
HM ro
o
>4^ 9
CO S
3 ^
^ ° r-
o S'
^ S. O)
a
O ^
K- ^ y.
^ 3r H
1^ (!t> W
>
o
>
PI
z
D
P3
z
H
K
m
tn
X
p
4^
00
Ul
' * t
i
rT
i
1
i
i
#
\
I
I,
i
1.
J
7&ra CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 19 (legislative day, September 1), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Taft to the bill (H. R. 4485)
authorizing the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
viz: On page 39, after line 13, insert the following:
1 Reno Beach, Lucas County, Ohio, with a view to pro-
2 tection of the Reno Beach-Howards Farm area and adjacent
3 areas from floods CtUised by freipienl windstorms and from
4 increases in the lake level of Lake Erie.
9_19_44 - A
O
>1
Cl
•v
►I
<v
o
o
cr
o
/?r* ^
(X» V-
a ^
^ S
o
►o -
2. H
D ::
<v
Pi
:o
cr
o
o
CO v: 2
cD
c/:
w
CiS ^ rr*
c Hw Qc ^
Ot 1
O
O
o
o
c/:
o
o |S.?
rr ^
c
s
Mr
l-J
(-t-
*
5
H
>
rs
o
hri
05
P
y:>
o
<-r
o .
p
r-
O
(TK
2*
n
z
0
n
z
H
-1
CO
L?a
72
“0
? 2
I
i
^ w
M i|
M a
x
po
>1:^
00
cn
United States
oj America
Congressional mecord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE ^8^^ CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 90 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1944 No. 152
Senate
(Legislative day of Friday. September 1, 1944)
The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian,
on the expiration of the recess.
The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown
Harris, D. D., offered the following
prayer:
Eternal Father, from the anguished
earth where innocent blood cries from
the ground, through the voice of woe
Thy voice to us is calling. We cannot
be true to ourselves and to our heritage
if in a crucified world we refuse the
cross. In the agony of humanity, we
could not hold ourselves safe and apart.
Thou knowest we have no choice save to
break the bread of sacrifice and spill the
sweet wine of youth in that eternal
sacrament forever crimsoned with the
cleansing love that seeketh not its own
and gives itself a ransom for many.
Grant to us a sustaining vision of life,
personal life and national life, as it was
made and meant to be, gladly losing
itself in high and holy causes, in singing
toil, in waste places transformed, in
shackles broken, in hunger fed and in
thirst quenched, in braver and better
things. Lead us for Thy name’s sake,
even in the valley of the shadow of
pain and loss, if the cross but lift us and
our willful and wistful humanity nearer,
our God, to Thee, nearer to Thee. We
ask it in the dear Redeemer’s name.
Amen.
THE JOURNAL
On request of Mr. Barkley, and by
unanimous consent, the reading of the
Journal of the proceedings of the calen¬
dar day Friday, September 15, 1944, was
dispensed with, and the Journal was
approved.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States submitting nomina¬
tions were communicated to the Senate
by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre¬
sentatives, by Mr. McLeod, one of its
clerks, announced that the House had
agreed to the report of the committee
of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendments of
the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5125) to
provide for the disposal of surplus Gov¬
ernment property and plants, and for
other purposes.
The message 'also announced that the
House had passed a bill (H. R. 5386) to
amend the Selective Training and Serv¬
ice Act of 1940, as amended, to extend
the time within which application may
be made for reemployment, and for other
purposes, in which it requested the con¬
currence of the Senate.
The message further announced that
the House had agreed to the concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 51) authorizing
a change in enrolling the bill (H. R. 4257)
to expatriate or exclude certain persons
for evading military and naval service.
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION
SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had afllxed his signature to the
following enrolled bills and joint resolu¬
tion, and they were signed by the Vice
President :
S. 1250. A bill to repeal section 2 of the act
approved May 17, 1926, which provides for
the forfeiture of pay of persons in the mili¬
tary and naval service of the United States
who are absent from duty on account of the
direct effects of venereal disease due to mis¬
conduct, and to amend Veterans Regulation
No. 10, as amended, to define line of duty and
misconduct for pension and compensation
purposes;
S. 2111. A bill to provide for the extension
of certain oil and gas leases; and
S. J. Res. 150. Joint resolution making an
appropriation to pay the necessary expenses
of the inaugural ceremonies of the President
of the United States January 20, 1945.
NORTH DAKOTA SENATORIAL PRIMARY-
NOTICE OF SPEECH
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, some
data which I sent for in North Dakota
so that I might have proof of statements
I might make in reply to the charges of
my colleague [Mr. Nye] has failed to ar¬
rive and will not arrive until this after¬
noon. Therefore, I give notice that I
will reply to the charges made by my
colleague at the next meeting of the
Senate.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the
Senate the following communication and
letters, which were referred as indicated:
Surplus Government Property and Mate¬
rials — Second Quarterly Report (S. Doc.
No. 239)
A communication from the President of
the United States, submitting, in response to
Senate Resolution 195, requesting an inves¬
tigation concerning Government property and
materials no longer needed for war purposes,
agreed to March 14, 1944, a second quarterly
report concerning surplus Government prop¬
erty and materials; to the Committee on Mil¬
itary Affairs and ordered to be printed.
Personnel of the Land Forces
A confidential letter from the Secretary of
War, reporting, pursuant to law, relative to
the personnel of the land forces on July 31,
1944, under section 3 (b) of the Selective
Training and Service Act of 1940; to the Com¬
mittee on Military Affairs.
Suspension of Deportation of Certain Aliens
A letter from the Attorney General, sub¬
mitting, pursuant to law, a report stating
all of the facts and pertinent provisions of
law in the cases of 302 Individuals whose de¬
portation has been suspended for more than 6
months under, authority vested in the Attor¬
ney General, together with a statement of the
reason for such suspension (with accom¬
panying papers); to the Committee on Im¬
migration.
Personnel Requirements
Letters from the Acting Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, Adminis¬
trator of the War Shipping Administration,
Acting Director of the Oface of Strategic
Services, Chairman of the Interstate Com¬
merce Commission, Administrative Assistant
to the Secretary of Commerce, and Director
of War Information, transmitting, pursuant
to law, estimates of personnel requirements
for their respective departments and offices
for the quarter ending December 31, 1944
(with accompanying papers); to the Com¬
mittee on Civil Service.
Disposition of Executive Papers
A letter from the Archivist of the United
States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a list
of papers and documents on the files of the
Departments of War (7), Navy (2), Interior
(2-), and Agriculture (2); United States Dis¬
trict Court for the Eastern District of Wiscon¬
sin, Federal Security Agency, General Ac¬
counting Office, Selective Service System, and
the Federal Works Agency which are not
needed in the conduct of business and have
no permanent value or historical Interest, and
requesting action looking to their disposition
(with accompanying papers): to a Joint
Select Committee on the Disposition of
Papers In the Executive Departments.
7987
7988
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
September 19
The VICE PRESIDENT appointed Mr.
Barkley and Mr. Brewster members of
the committee on the part of the Senate.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
Petitions, etc., were laid before the
Senate by the Vice President, and re¬
ferred as indicated:
A resolution by the Board of Liquidation,
City Debt, New Oorleans, La., favoring the
enactment of the so-called Boren bill, being
House bill 1502, proposing to amend the Se¬
curity and Exchange Act of 1934 by provid¬
ing that the issuance and sale of municipal
bonds be not under the jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission; to the
Committee on Banking and Currency.
A resolution by the City Council of Min¬
neapolis, Minn., requesting inclusion in any
proposed coal-control act of a provision pre¬
serving benefits of water transportation to
communities located on or adjacent to tide
waters, lakes, or rivers; to the Committee on
Interstate Commerce.
A resolution adopted by a meeting of citi¬
zens of Hannibal, Mo., favoring the adoption
of measures to keep German prisoners of war
out of the city of Hannibal, Mo., or from
laboring therein, and to restore the city ball
park to its original condition and use; to the
Committee on Military Affairs.
A petition of sundry citizens of New York
City and vicinity, praying for the enactment
of the so-called Mead bill, being Senate bill
1882, to increase the compensation of letter
carriers; to the Committee on Post Offices
and Post Roads.
PROHIBITION OF LIQUOR SALES AROUND
MILITARY CAMPS — MEMORIALS
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I ask con¬
sent to present for appropriate reference
memorials signed by 3,090 citizens of Ver¬
mont, remonstrating against the enact¬
ment of Senate bill 860, relating to the
sale of alcoholic liquors to members of
the land and naval forces of the United
States, or any similar prohibition legis¬
lation.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the memorials will be received
and referred to the Committee on Mili¬
tary Affairs.
PETITION FOR PEACE FROM THE UNITA¬
RIAN SOCIETY, LAWRENCE, KANS.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unan¬
imous consent to present for appropriate
reference a petition for peace, sent to
me by Homer A. Jack, Ph. D., minister,
the Unitarian Society of Lawrence, Kans.,
just before the Senate recessed in July.
It is signed by 23 citizens of Abilene and
Newton, Kans., and reads as follows:
Since the declared purpose of the United
Nations in the war is the achievement of
political, cultural, and spiritual freedom
throughout the world, and economic justice
and a higher standard of living for all peoples.
We urge our Government to formulate spe¬
cific proposals for such a peace and to make
them known to the governments and peoples
of all lands, with a view to ending this war
honorably at the earliest possible moment.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the petition will be received and
referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
RESOLUTIONS OP WATER CONSERVA¬
TION CONFERENCE, MODIFICATIONS OP
AMENDMENTS TO RIVERS AND HAR¬
BORS AND FLOOD CONTROL BILLS, AND
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, on
the 7th and 8th of September there was
held in the city of Chicago a conference
on the conservation of water. Delegates
came to that conference from all parts
of the United States, and there studied
some of the amendments which have
been suggested to the pending river and
harbor bill and to the pending flood-
control bill. Engineers and lawyers rep¬
resenting some 29 States, as I recall,
were there.
The result of the conference was to
make certain suggestions with respect to
the modification of some of the pending
amendments. Resolutions were adopted,
all cf w’hich, I think, are of such great
importance that they should be avail¬
able to all Members of the Senate and to
be called particularly to the attention of
the Committee on Commerce.
There is also a statement by President
Roosevelt with respect to the importance
of reclamation and irrigation in connec¬
tion with the development of the water
resources of the various river basins.
At my request Mr. F. O. Hagie, secre¬
tary-treasurer of the Water Conserva¬
tion Conference, has submitted to me
the resolutions and the mcdiflcations of
the various amendments. I ask unani¬
mous consent that his letter transmitting
these matters to me, together with the
letter from President Roosevelt, may be
printed at length in the Record, and then
referred to the Committee on Commerce
for its consideration.
There being no objection, the letters
and accompanying papers were ordered
to be referred to the Committee on Com¬
merce, and to be printed in the Record,
a§ follows:
The White House,
Washington, August 7, 1944.
Hon. John H. Overton,
United States Senate.
My Dear John: I am glad to learn from
your letter of June 23 that the Senate Com¬
merce Committee adopted a progressive pro¬
vision for the marketing of power from navi¬
gation and flood control projects in the bills
that have been reported to the Senate.
The dam and reservoir projects in the Cen¬
tral Valley of California, which would be
authorized by H. R. 4485 for construction
by the Army engineers, should, for purposes
of sound administration and coordinated op¬
eration, be constructed by the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Department of the In¬
terior. These projects constitute logical ex¬
tensions of the existing Central Valley project
of the Bureau of Reclamation.'' California, in
common with the other Western States, has
a flood-control problem and a need for water.
The basic and best solution of her flood con¬
trol problem lies in the maximum storage and
use of water for irrigation. Every flood con¬
trol project and every navigation project in
the West should therefore be made, so far
as practicable, to play its part in the great
scheme of conservation of water for bene¬
ficial consumptive use.
It may well be that testimony before your
Committee in favor of the construction- of
thece projects by the Corps of Engineers was
a reflection of the desire of certain large land
interests in California to obtain irrigation
and other benefits without being subjected to
the repayment requirements and to the other
public safeguards that are a part of the rec¬
lamation law, but I do not believe that this
should be allowed to obscure the funda¬
mental objectives of that law. In this con¬
nection. I was pleased by the inclusion of
the irrigation amendment. But this amend¬
ment will not assure that the planning, de¬
sign, construction and operation of these
reservoirs shall be such as to fulfill the pri¬
mary need for conservation and beneficial
consumptive use of water. I hope, therefore,
that the Congress will see fit to place in the
Bureau of Reclamation the authority and
the responsibility for accomplishment of the
great objectives that the Federal Government
should achieve in California.
I am convinced of the soundness of the
amendment designed to assure that the re¬
spective States have opportunity to have
their views formally recorded in reports on
proposed projects of interest to them. While
I appreciate your concern over the provision
of that amendment that would allow the
States to hold up construction of projects
already approved by the Congress, this ap¬
pears to be the case only with respect to
projects in the present bill and is necessary to
permit transition to the procedure that would
be effective for future projects. This amend¬
ment seems to me to be no less constitu¬
tional than other limitations written by the
Congress from time to time on the extent
and manner of the execution of powers vested
in the Federal Government by the commerce
clause of the Constitution.
With respect to the Missouri River, spe¬
cifically, I am hopeful that a method can
be found for the settlement of differences
between the proponents of irrigation and
of navigation so that the needed over-all
development of the basin can proceed expe¬
ditiously.
I appreciate your having given my views
consideration and having made them avail¬
able to your committee. You have under¬
taken an important job and one that is par¬
ticularly close to my heart. I am grateful
and I am sure the Nation as a whole will be
grateful for the great effort you are putting
into this task.
Sincerely yours.
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Water-Conservation Conference,
W ashington, D. C., September 14, 1944.
Hon. Joseph C. O’Mahoney,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator: Last week 123 representa¬
tives from 29 States convened in Chicago for
a water-conservation conference called by
4 widely scattered groups to perfect
amendments to the river-harbor and flood-
control bills now pending before the Senate.
We have the honor of conveying to you
in compliance with resolutions passed at
that conference the following:
1. Copies of two resolutions unanimously
approved by the conference.
2. A proposed revision of the O'Mahoney-
Millikln amendments, together with other
amendments to H. R. 3961 and H. R. 4435,
all of which were approved by the conference.
3. A list of the delegates by States who
registered for the conference and who par¬
ticipated in the deliberations, together with
the name of the organization or agency for
which they were authorized to speak.
4. A list of the committees and the tem¬
porary officers chosen by the conference.
All participants in the conference were
most grateful to you and Senator Millikin
for yom' interest and participation and for
your counsel and advice to the committees
and to the conference as a whole.
Any help which you can give in bringing
the above material and information to the
attention of interested parties throughout
the Nation will be greatly appreciated by
every member of the conference and especi¬
ally by the undersigned.
Sincerely yours,
Alban J. Parker, Chairman.
P. O. Hagie, Secretary-Treasurer.
Resolutions Approved by the Water Conser¬
vation Conference
resolution 1
Whereas the omnibus rivers and harbors
bill (H. R. 3961) and the omnibus flood -con¬
trol bill (H. R. 4485) , as passed by the House
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
7989
of Representatives and as now pending be¬
fore the United States Senate, providing for
public works to serve the interests of tl^e
Nation and of the States and their local re¬
gions, contain, in their present form, various
provisions inimical to the sovereign rights
and interests of the States and the people
thereof; and
Whereas we, representatives from 29 States
of the United States, are now in session in
Chicago on September 7 and 8, 1944, at the
call of the Interstate Commission on the
Delaware River Basin, the Texas delegation
in attendance at the New Orleans meeting
of the National Rivers and 'Harbors Con¬
gress, the Committee on Preservation of In¬
tegrity of State Water Laws of the National
Reclamation Association, and the Northeast¬
ern States Conservation Conference for the
following purposes:
1. To assure local and State participation
in plans for water-resources development;
2. To preserve the integrity of State water
laws;
3. To perfect amendments to the omnibus
rivers and harbors bill (H. R. 3961) and the
omnibus flood-control bill (H. R. 4485) now
pending before the United States Senate; and
4. To insure adoption of such amendments
by the Congress; and
Whereas such perfecting amendments to
be offered in substitution for and in addi¬
tion to the so-called O’Mahoney and Milli-
kln amendments to said bills have been pre¬
pared with the advice of Senators O’Mahonev
and Millikin and approved by this confer¬
ence; and
Whereas said amendments, if adopted by
the Congress, will protect the rights and in¬
terests of the several States and provide for
the full use of the facilities of the States and
the Federal agencies concerned with the de¬
velopment and control of the water resources
of the country in that they recognize and
would preserve the correct distinction be¬
tween the functions of the States and the
United States and require full cooperation
on the part of the Federal agencies involved
and between them and the various States:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That this conference calls to the
attention of all interested in the control and
development of the Nation's water resources
the action of this conference, and urges them
to take all steps necessary to secure the adop¬
tion at the present session of Congress of
said amendments and the two bills as so
amended; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of this con¬
ference is instructed to give general circula¬
tion to said proposed amendments to the
bills H. R. 3961 and H. R. 4485, and to this
resolution and to mail copies to all persons
and organizations here represented.
RESOLUTION 2
Be it
Resolved, That this conference, having been
honored by the presence of Senators Joseph
C. O’Mahonet, of Wyoming, Senator Eugene
D. Millikin, of Colorado, Senator Hugh
Butler, of Nebraska, and Congressman Fran¬
cis Case, of South Dakota, and aided by their
counsel in its deliberations, expresses to them
its gratitude for their attendance and ad¬
vice; and be it further
Resolved, That the thanks of the confer¬
ence are extended to Senators O’Mahoney
and Millikin for their untiring efforts on
' behalf of the amendments perfecting H. R.
3961 and H. R. 4485 supported by this con-
' ference; and '
The secretary of this conference is directed
to present copies of this resolution to Sena¬
tor O'Mahoney, Senator Millikin, Senator
Butler, and Representative Case,
O’Mahoney-Millikin and Other Amend¬
ments TO THE River -Harbor and Flood -
Control Bills Now Fending Before the
Senate op the United States as Approved
BY the Water Conservation Conference
(Attended by water representatives of 29
States and interested Senators and Con¬
gressmen)
1. At the proper place in the bill insert
the following:
“In connection with the exercise of juris¬
diction over the rivers of the Nation through
the construction of works of improvement,
for navigation or flood control, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the Congress to
recognize the interests and rights of the
States in determining the development of
the watersheds within their borders and
likewise their interests and rights in water
utilization and control; to p-eserve and pro¬
tect to the fullest possible extent established
and potential uses, for all purposes, of the
waters of the Nation’s rivers; to facilitate the
consideration of projects on a basis of com¬
prehensive, basin-wide development; and to
limit the authorization and construction of
navigation works to those in which a sub¬
stantial benefit to navigation will be realized
therefrom and which can be operated con¬
sistently with appropriate and economic use
of the waters of such rivers by other users.
“In conformity with this policy:
“(a) ^qans, proposals or reports of the
Chief of Engineers, War Department, for any
works of improvement for navigation or flood
control not heretofore or herein authorized,
shall be submitted to the Congress only upon
compliance with the provisions of this para¬
graph (a). Investigations which form the
basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports
shall be conducted in such a manner as to
give to the affected State or States, during
the course of the investigations, information
developed by the investigations and also
opportunity for consultation regarding plans
and proposals, and, to the extent deemed
practicable by the Chief of Engineers, op¬
portunity to cooperate in the investigations.
If such investigations in whole or part are
concerned with the use or control of waters
arising west of the ninety-seventh meridian,
the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Sec¬
retary of the Interior, during the course of
the investigations, information developed by
the investigations and also opportunity for
consultation regarding plans and proposals,
and to the extent deemed practicable by the
Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate
in the investigations. The relations of the
Chief of Engineers with any State under this
paragraph (a) shall be with the Governor
of the State or such official or agency of the
State as the Governor may designate. The
term “affected State or States” shall include
those in which the works or any part thereof
are proposed to be located; those which in
whole or part are both within the drainage
basin involved and situated in a State lying
wholly or in part west of the ninety-eighth
meridian; and such of those which are east
of the ninety-eighth meridian as, in the
judgment of the Chief of Engineers, will be
substantially affected. Such plans, proposals,
or reports and related investigations shall be
made to the end, among other things, of
facilitating the coordination of plans for the
construction and operation of the proposed
works with other plans Involving the waters
which would be used or controlled by such
proposed works. Each report submitting any
such plans or proposals to the Congress shall
set out therein, among other things, the rela¬
tionship between the plans for construction
and operation of the proposed works and the
plans, if any, of the affected States and of
the Secretary of the Interior. Tlie Chief of
Engineers shall transmit a copy of his pro-
I posed report to each affected State, and, in
case the plans or proposals covered by the
report are concerned with the use or control
of waters which rise in whole or in part west
of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Sec¬
retary of the Interior. Within 90 days from
the date of receipt of said proposed report,
the written view.s and recommendations of
each affected State and of the Secretary of
the Interior may be 'submitted to the Chief
of Engineers. The Secretary of War shall
transmit to the Congress, with such com¬
ments and recommendations as he deems
appropriate, the proposed report together
with the submitted views and recommenda¬
tions of affected States and of the Secretary
of the Interior. The Secretary of War may
prepare and make said' transmittal any time
following said 90-day period. The letter of
transmittal and its attachments shall be
printed as a House or Senate document.
“(b) The authorizations for projects de¬
scribed as follows in this act shall be sub¬
ject to the provisions of this paragraph (b) :
“Rowlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat River.
"Youghiogheny River Basin.
“Raystown Reservoir on the Juniata River.
“Connecticut River Basin.
*««>!.*
“If a written objection to the authoriza¬
tion of any of the above described projects
if filed with the Secretary of War within 90
days after the date of such authorization by
the Governor of any affected State (as de¬
fined in paragraph (a) of this section), then
the Chief of Engineers (1) shall give op¬
portunity to be heard to representatives ac¬
credited by the Governor of each affected
State; (2) shall undertake such investiga¬
tions or reinvestigations as he deems ap¬
propriate in the circumstances; and (3) shall
prepare a review report and recommenda¬
tions in the light of said objections and hear¬
ings and shall transmit a copy thereof to
each affected State. The review report shall
be of such scope as the Chief of Engineers
deems appropriate in the circumstances.
Thereupon, within 90 days from the date of
receipt of said review report, the written
views and recommendations of each such
State may be submitted to the Chief of Engi¬
neers. The Secretary of War shall transmit
to the Congress, with such comments and
recommendations as he deems appropriate,
the review report together with the submit¬
ted views and recommendations of such
States. The Secretary of War may prepare
and make said transmittal any time follow¬
ing said 90-day period. The letter of trans¬
mittal and its attachments shall be printed
as a House or Senate document. The au¬
thorization in question, with such modifica¬
tions of the plans for works as may have
been recommended in the review report of
the Chief of Engineers, shall be effective on
the date when said document is printed, if
the Secretary of War concurs in said review
report and if there is no objection thereto
set forth in a submission of views and recom¬
mendations made by a State in accordance
with the above procedure. The authoriza¬
tion, if objections thereto are set forth in
such a submission, shall not be effective un¬
less and until otherwise provided by subse¬
quent act of Congress.
“Any authorization hereafter made based
on a plan, proposal, or report which has been
made to the Congress prior to the date of this
act but which has not been heretofore or
herein authorized, shall likewise be subject to
the provisions of this paragraph (b).
“(c) Tlie use for navigation, in connection
with the operation and maintenance of such
works herein or hereafter authorized for con¬
struction, of waters arising in States lying
wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth
meridian shall be only such use as does not
conflict with any beneficial consumptive use,
present or future. In States lying wholly or
partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian.
7990
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
September 19
of such waters for domestic, municipal, stock
water, irrigation, mining, or industrial pur¬
poses.
"(d) The Secretary of the Interior, in mak¬
ing investigations of and re"''’-rs on works
for irrigation and purposes incidental there¬
to shall, in relation to an affected State or
States (as deilned in paragraph (a) of this
section), and to the Secretary of War, be
subject to the same provisions regarding in¬
vestigations, plans, proposals, and reports as
prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section
for the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary
of War. In the event a submission of views
and recommendations, made by an affected
State or by the Secretary of War pursuant to
said provisions, sets forth objections to the
plans or proposals covered by the report of
the Secretary of the Interior, on grounds not
inconsistent with paragraph (c) of this sec¬
tion, the proposed works shall not be deemed
authorized except upon approval by an act
of Congress: and subsection 9 (a) of the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat.
1187) and subsection 3 (a) of the act of
August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418), as amended,
are hereby amended accordingly.”
Section 4 of bill as passed by House:
“Sec. 6. That the Secretary of '.f&r is au¬
thorized to contract for water storage for
any beneficial uses or purposes with States,
legal subdivisions thereof. State and inter¬
state agencies, municipalities, public, quasi
public, or private corporations, firms, asso¬
ciations, or individuals on such terms and
conditions as he may deem reasonable, when
storage capacity for any such uses or pur¬
poses is or may be made available at any
reservoir now or hereafter constructed by the
War Department : Provided, That the right to
the use of water for such purposes shall have
been established by proceedings in conform¬
ity with State laws: And provided further,
That no such water storage shall be in con¬
flict with, or adversely affect, then existing
lawful uses of water. All moneys received
from such contracts shall be deposited in the
Treasury of the United States as miscella¬
neous receipts.”
Section 6 of bill as passed by House:
“Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior, that in con¬
nection with any dam and reservoir project
constructed or to be constructed by the Sec¬
retary of War additional works for the diver¬
sion and distribution of water may be utilized
for irrigation, the Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to make a report and findings
on the construction of such additional works
for the diversion and distribution of water as
he may deem necessary for such purposes.
Such report and findings shall be made in ac¬
cordance with and subject to the provisions of
the Federal reclamation laws (act of June 17,
1902, 32 Stat. 388. and acts amendatory there¬
of or supplenjental thereto). Within the
limits of the water users’ repayment ability,
such report may be predicated on the alloca-
tlr- to irrigation of an appropriate portion of
the cost of structures and facilities used for
Irrigation. After authorization as provided by
law, the Secretary of the Interior shall con¬
struct, operate, and maintain such additional
works in accordance with said Federal recla¬
mation laws and shall be authorized to de¬
liver to such lands such portion of the water
made available by said dam and reservoir
project as may be set forth in said report and
findings of the Secretary of the Interior or
as may be otherwise provided by law. The
provisions of this section shall not prejudice
lawful uses then existing nor water rights
or priorities established under applicable
State laws, and shall not apply to any dam
or reservoir heretofore or hereafter con¬
structed which supplements any existing lo¬
cally operated irrigation system or other lo¬
cally operated water facilities, nor shall this
section nor the provisions of section 6 hereof
apply to any dam or reservoir heretofore con¬
structed in whole or In part by the Army en¬
gineers, which provides conservation storage
of water for irrigation purposes.”
Section 15. Delete the entire section.
(This section relates to the authority and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers over
dams on navigable rivers and tributaries
thereof.)
Section 9. Missouri River Basin.
Delete line 5, page 20, to line 2, page 22, in¬
clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the follow¬
ing:
“Subject to such revision and coordination
as the Secretary of War and the Secretary of
the Interior may agree upon in a joint report
to the Congress hereby directed to be made
on or before - 1945 (and to be printed as a
House or Senate document) , the general com¬
prehensive plans set forth in House Docu¬
ment 475 and Senate Document 191, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, are hereby
approved and the initial stages recommended
therein are hereby authorized, provided, said
joint report shall include, among other things,
(a) the allocations to various purposes of the
estimated costs of the works comprising the
plan, said allocations to be made on a basin¬
wide basis in general conformity with the pro¬
visions and principles of section 9 of the Rec¬
lamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187)
as modified with respect to flood control and
navigation by the practices of the Secretary of
War; (b) provision for regulations by the
Secretary of War to govern operation of the
flood control or navigation capacity of any
reservoir which, although agreed to be oper¬
ated by the Bureau of Reclamation, includes
some capacity dedicated and allocated for
purposes of navigation or flood control; and
(c) provision that water stored in Fort Peck
Reservoir shall be made available for irriga¬
tion and other beneflcial uses as additional
multiple-purpose reservoirs are constructed
and placed in operation; said multiple uses
to include irrigation and other beneflcial con-
sumptiv" uses, power, and navigation.”
The foregoing amendments apply to H. R.
4485, as reported by the Senate Commerce
Committee on June 22,'T944, Report No. 1030,
Calendar No. 1047.
RIVERS AND HARBORS BILL (H. R. 3961)
Amendments in accordance with the fore¬
going are to be made to H. R. 3961, as reported
by the Senate Commerce Committee on May
25, 1944, Report No. 903, Calendar No. 915, in
all Instances where appropriate. In addition
thereto, the following amendments are rec¬
ommended to H. R. 3961 :
1. Delete that portion of section 1, page 28,
line 10, to page 28, line 23, inclusive, and in¬
sert the following in lieu thereof:
“Snake River, Oreg., Wash., and Idaho:
The construction of such dams as are nec¬
essary and open channel improvement for
purposes of providing slack-water navigation
and irrigation in accordance with the plan
submitted in House Document No. 704, Seven¬
ty-fifth Congress, with such modifications, as
do not change the requirement to provide
slack-water navigation, as the Secretary of
War may find advisable after consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and such
other agencies as may be concerned: Provided,
'That surplus electric energy generated at the
dams authorized in this item shall be de¬
livered to the Secretary of the Interior for
disposition in accordance with existing laws
relating to the disposition of power at Bonne¬
ville Dam: Provided further. That nothing
in this paragraph shall be construed as con¬
ferring the power of condemnation of trans¬
mission lines.”
2. Restore to the bill that portion thereof
appearing from line 24, page 35. to line 3,
page 36, inclusive, in strike-out type, the same
constituting section 4 of H. R. 3961 as the
same was passed by the House of Representa¬
tives, reading as follows:
“Sec. 4. The excess land provisions of the
Federal reclamation laws shall not be appli¬
cable to lands which will receive a water sup¬
ply from the Central Valley project, Califor¬
nia, reauthorized by section 2 of the River
and Harbor Act, approved August 26, 1937.’’
List op Delegates Registered at Water
Conservation Conference at Stevens
Hotel, Chicago, September 7 and 8, 1944
ARIZONA
A. C. Williams, State of Arizona.
CALIFORNIA
G. L. Henderson, Kern County Canal &
Water Co.
S. T. Harding, Tulare Lake Basin Water
Storage District.
R. W. Stanfield, County of Riverside.
R. B. Harris. Irrigation Districts of Cali¬
fornia.
C. L. Kaupke, Kings River Water Associa¬
tion.
M. E. Salsbury, Los Angeles County Flood
Control District.
■S. B. Robinson, Colorado River Board of
California.
W. A. Smith> Los Angeles County.
Howard A. Miller, Los Angeles Chamber of
Commerce.
E. F. Scattergood, Colorado River Board of
California.
A. B. Shaw, Jr., Attorney General of Cali¬
fornia.
James H. Howard, Colorado River Board of
California.
L. H. Hauser, Colorado River Board of Cali¬
fornia.
Earl Redwine, Riverside County.
W. V. Pittman, Riverside County.
Edward Hyatt, State of California.
E. C. Reynolds, United States Chamber of
Commerce.
F. H. Mogle, County Flood Control.
Raymond Matthew, State Department of
Public Works.
Rolan Curran, Central Valley Project Asso¬
ciation.
W. C. Penfield, Santa Barbara County.
C. W. Bradbury, Board of Supervisors,
Santa Barbara County.
F. H. Fowler, Colorado River Board of Cali¬
fornia.
Burnham Enersen, North Kern Water
Storage District.
L. H. Adam, Santa Maria Valley Water
Conservation District.
W. R. Bailey, Tulare County.
Leroy McCormick, Tulare County.
' COLOR.ADO
Eugene D. Millikin, United States Senator
from Colorado.
R. L. Carr, Colorado.
Clifford H. Stone, State of Colorado.
Glenn G. Saunders, State of Colorado.
W. P. Redding, Denver Chamber of Com¬
merce.
A. P. Gumlick, Denver Water Board.
Roscoe Fleming, National Farmers Union.
Gail L. Ireland, Attorney General of
Colorado.
George M. Corbett, Colorado.
A. W. McHendrie, Colorado.
CONNECTICUT
S. W. Wadhams, State of Connecticut.
DELAWARE
R. C. Beckett. Interstate Commission on
the Delaware River Basin.
IDAHO
Earl Murphy, State Chamber of Commerce.
E. W. Rising, State of Idaho, and Governor
of Idaho.
ILLINOIS
J. B. Lamson, C. B. & Q. R. R.
H. J. Gramlich, C. & N. W. R. R.
Leon H. Robbins, Milwaukee RailroBd.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944
A. J. Meseroe, Attorney General.
G. A. Haggander, C. B. & Q. R. R.
R. W. Booze, Federal Power Commission.
Paul E. Carneck, G. T. M. Southern Pacific
Co.
D. J. McGanney, G. T. M. Southern Pacific
Co.
L. M?»Pisher, United States Public Health
Service.
KANSAS
C. A. Munger, Republic Valley.
J. E. Klssell, Kansas Reclamation Associa¬
tion.
E. Porter Ahrens, Kansas Reclamation
Association.
MAINE
John G. Marshall, State of Maine.
MARYLAND
J. R. Baker, Penn Water & Power Co.
L. H. Sothoron, Interstate Commission on
Potomac River Basin.
MASSACHUSETTS
Laurence Curtis, Massachusetts Commis¬
sion on Interstate Cooperation.
MINNESOTA
W. E. Olson, Minneapolis Civic & Com¬
merce Association.
W. T. Foley, The Farmer.
F. P. Fellows, St. Paul Association of Com¬
merce.
J. W. Haw, Northern Pacific Ry. Co.
A. J. Dexter, Northern Pacific Ry. Co.
MISSOURI
Hugh Denney, State Conservation Com¬
mission and State Department Resources and
Development.
P. T. Simons, Missouri Pacific R. R.
Sam Shelton, The Post Dispatch, St. Louis,
Mo.
MONTANA
W. A. D’Ewart, Montana Reclamation Asso¬
ciation.
W. F. Flinn, State of Montana.
Fred Sanborn, Great Northern Ry.
O. S. Warden, State of Montana.
NEBRASKA
John Riddell, State of Nebraska.
George Proud, State Reclamation Associa¬
tion.
E. N. Van Horne, Nebraska Reclamation
Association.
Wardner Scott, State Department Roads
and Irrigation.
C. P. Peterson, Nebraska.
Hugh Butler, United States Senator from
Nebraska.
NEVADA
A. M. Smith, State of Nevada.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Stephen W. Wheeler, State of New Hamp¬
shire.
NEW JERSEY
. Duane E. Minard, Interstate Commission
on the Delaware River Basin.
NEW MEXICO
E. W. Bowen, State of New Mexico.
NORTH DAKOTA
F. J. Fredrickson, Greater North Dakota
Association State Water Commission, and
Governor Moses.
Harry E. Polk, National Reclamation Asso¬
ciation.
R. A. H. Brandt, North Dakota Reclamation
Association.
Kenneth W. Simons, State of North Dakota,
SOUTH DAKOTA
M. G. Scott, South Dakota Reclamation
Association.
H. M. Pierce, South Dakota Reclamation
Association.
Raymond P. Lund, South Dakota Reclama¬
tion Association.
A. Svendby, South Dakota Reclamation
Association.
Francis Case, Congressman, South Dakota.
OKLAHOMA
Frank Raab, Division Water Resources.
OREGON
Allan A. Smith, Oregon Reclamation Con¬
gress.
Charles E. Stricklin, State Engineer of Ore¬
gon.
Robert W. Sawyer, State of Oregon.
PENNSYLVANIA
L. W. Heath, Interstate Commission on the
Delaware River Basin.
I. S. Sanll, Pennsylvania Municipal Au¬
thorities Association.
Hon. P. Lichtenwalter, Pennsylvania.
J. H. Murdock, Jr., Pennsylvania.
James H- Allen, Interstate Commission on
the Delaware River Basin.
C. A. Miller, Interstate Commission on the
Delaware River Basin.
TEXAS
J. E. Sturrock, State of Texas.
Max Starcke, Lower Colorado River Au¬
thority.
C. S. Clark, Texas Board of Water Engi¬
neers.
E. W. Easterling, Lower Neches Valley Au¬
thority.
Charles Matula, Lower Colorado River Au¬
thority.
A. P. Mitchell, Texas Society of Profes¬
sional Engineers.
John D. McCall, State of Texas.
R. B. McLeaish, State of Texas.
W. G. Hall, San Jacinto, River Conservation
and Reclamation District.
UTAH
E. H. Watson, State of Utah.
S. A. Kennedy, Metropolitan Water Board
of Sait Lake City.
Ora Bundy, State of Utah.
VERMONT
P. E. Morrissey, Vermont Conservation
Board.
Philip Shutler, State of Vermont.
Alban J. Parker, Attorney General, State of
Vermont.
S. R. Waterman, Governor of Vermont.
WYOMING
L. C. Bishop, State of Wyoming.
H. T. Person, Wyoming Reclamation Asso¬
ciation.
Joseph C. O’Mahoney, United States Sena¬
tor from Wyoming.
WASHINGTON
Lars Langloe, State Department of Con¬
servation and Development.
Leo E. Lowe, Washington Irrigation Insti¬
tute; Seattle and State chambers of com¬
merce.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
David J. Guy, Chamber of Commerce of
United States.
P. O. Hagie, National Reclamation Associa¬
tion.
E. R. Cotton, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin.
The conference named the following com¬
mittees ;
DRAFTING COMMITTEE
Clifford H. Stone, chairman, Colorado;
James H. Allen, Pennsylvania; Philip Shut¬
ler, Vermont; John D. McCall, Texas; W. R.
Bailey, California; E. W. Rising, Idaho; L. H.
Sothoron, Maryland.
COMMITTEE ADVISERS
Senator Joseph C. O’Mahoney, of Wyoming.
Senator Eugene D. Millikin, of Colorado.
RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE
Robert W. Sawyer, chairman, Oregon; J. E.
Sturrock, Texas; Duane E. Minard, New Jer¬
sey; Frank Raab, Oklahoma; Fred Fellows,
Minnesota; C. L. Kaupke, California; Franklin
7991
Lichtenwalter, Pennsylvania; R. A. H. Brandt,
North Dakota; Samuel H. Wadhams, Con¬
necticut; Glenn Saunders, Colorado.
TEMPORARY OFFICERS
Alban J. Parker, conference chairman, Ver¬
mont; F. O. Hagie, conference secretary-
treasurer, Washington, D. C.
PAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
COMMITTEE
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to place in the Rec¬
ord a letter written by Dr. Karl Mennin-
ger, one of the leading businessmen of
Topeka, urging prompt action on the bill
for a permanent Fair Employment Prac¬
tice Committee. I heartily approve the
stand taken by Dr. Menninger.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
The Menninger Clinic,
Topeka, Kans., September 7, 1944.
Senator Arthur Capper,
seriate Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Capper: * • * It ap¬
pears that the bill for a permanent F. E. P. C.
may be sidetracked at this session. It seems
to me that this would be a great mistake.
It would mean sidestepping an extraordi¬
narily Important problem. Evasion by Con-
, gress of this issue would appear to be a step
in the direction of principles advocated by
Hitler instead of a step in the direction of
principles advocated by our own Thomas
Jefferson. Won’t you do what you can to
see that the bill is reported favorably as
soon as possible?
• * * • •
Sincerely yours,
Karl Menninger, M. D.
REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts, from the
Committee on Naval Affairs:
S. 2053. A bill relating to the pay of officers
of the retired list of the Navy serving on
active duty in the rank of rear admiral; with
an amendment (Rept. No. 1101).
By Mr. WHEELER, from the Committee on
Indian Affairs :
S. 1925. A bill to authorize and direct the
Secretary of the Interior to issue to Charles
F. White a patent in fee to certain land;
without amendment (Rept, No. 1102) ; and
S. 2026. A bill authorizing the issuance of
a patent in fee to Richard Pickett; without
amendment (Rept. No. 1103).
By Mr. DANAHER, from the Committee on
the Judiciary:
S. 578. A bill granting jurisdiction to the
Court of Claims to reopen and readjudicate
the eminent-domain case of John W. Parish,
trustee (John H. Bexten, substituted) , and
revise its judgment heretofore entered there¬
in; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1104).
By Mr. BARKLEY, from the Committee on
the Library:
S. J. Res. l41. Joint resolution memorializ¬
ing the name of Horace Wells; without
amendment.
EXEMPTION OP OFFICERS AND EMPLOY-
£■£3 OP NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD
FROM PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, from
the Committee on the Judiciary, I report
back favorably with an amendment the
bill (S. 4349) to exempt certain ofBcers
and employees of the National War
Labor Board from certain provisions of
the Criminal Code, and I submit a re¬
port (No. 1107) thereon.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE September 19
7992
The bill would correct an unusual
situation. I shall not ask to have the
bill taken up today; but tomorrow, after
opportunity has been had to examine
the bill, I shall request unanimous con¬
sent to have it taken up for immediate
consideration.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the report will be received, and
the bill will be placed on the calendar.
NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT
OP 1940
Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, from
the Committee on Finance I report back
favorably without amendment the bill
(S. 2015) to liberalize certain provisions
of the National Service Life Insurance
Act of 1940, as amended, and I submit
a report (No. 1105) thereon, and also
from the same committee I report back
favorably without amendment the bill (S.
2058) to liberalize certain provisions of
the National Service Life Insurance Act
of 1940, as amended, and I submit a re¬
port (No. 1106) thereon.
I hope Senators will examine the bills
and reports, because tomorrow or the
next day, if we shall be in session, I shall
ask for consideration of the bills. They
both deal with the National Service Life
Insurance Act of 1940, and are both
amendatory of the act in very impor¬
tant respects. This is legislation which
ought to pass the Senate before we take
a recess.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the reports submitted by the Sen¬
ator from Georgia will be received and
the bills will be placed on the calendar.
PART-TIME EMPLOYEES OP COMMIT¬
TEES— REPORTS
Mr. MEAD, from the Special Commit¬
tee to Investigate the National Defense
Program, in response to Senate Resolu¬
tion 319, relative to persons employed
who are not full-time employees of the
Senate or any committee thereof, agreed
to August 23, 1944, submitted a report
thereon, which was referred to the Com¬
mittee on Appropriations and ordered to
be printed in the Record, as follows:
SPECIAL COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM SEPTEMBER 1, 1944
(Standing or select committee)
To the Senate;
The above-mentioned committee hereby submits the following report showing the name of persons employed by the commit¬
tee who are not full-time employees of the Senate or of the committee, in compliance with the terms of Senate Resolution No.
319, agreed to August 28, 1944:
Name of individual
Address
Name and address of department or organization by whom paid
#
Annual rate
of compen¬
sation
Joe L. Martinez (investigator) _
Franklin N. Parks (investigator) . .
Harold O. Robinson (chief investigator)...
Brig. Gen. Frank E. Lowe . . .
Lt. Col. Harry Vaughan... _ _
208 Massachusetts Ave. NW . .
2701 Connecticut Ave _ _
3446 Highwood Drive SE _
1316 New Hampshire Ave _ _ _
U. S. Maritime Commission, Commerce Building, 14th St. between
E St. and Constitution Ave.
Office of Price Administratiom Second and D Sts. SW . I _
U. S. Maritime Commission, Commerce Buiiding, 14th St. between
E St. and Constitution Ave.
General Staff, U. S. Army, Finance Office, Pentagon Buiiding .
$3,800
3,800
6,000
6,000
3,500
JAS. M. Mead, Chairman. >
Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on
Public Lands and Surveys, pursuant to
Senate Resolution 319, supra, submitted
a report relating to the subcommittee to
investigate public lands, of the Com¬
mittee on Public Lands and Surveys,
which was referred to the Committee on
Appropriations and appears under a
separate heading.
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
As in executive session.
The following favorable reports of
nominations were submitted;
By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, from the
Committee on Finance :
Paul S. Nice, of Denver, Colo., to be assayer
in the mint of the United States at Denver,
Colo., to fill an existing vacancy.
By Mr. CONNALLY, from the Committee
on Foreign Relations:
H. Coit MacLean, of Virginia, now a Foreign
Service officer of class 2 and a secretary in the
Diplomatic Service, to be aiso a consul gen¬
eral of the United States of America; and
Edward P. Lawton, of Georgia, now a For¬
eign Service officer of class 4 and a secretary
In the Diplomatic Service, to be also a consul
general of the United States of America.
By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on
the Judiciary:
Haroid Maurice Kennedy, of New York, to
be United States district judge for the eastern
district of New York, vice Marcus B. Campbeil,
deceased.
By Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts, from the
Committee on Naval Affairs:
Sundry officers of the Naval Reserve for
appointment as lieutenants (Junior grade)
and/or ensigns in the Navy; sundry persons
for appointment as assistant surgeons in the
Navy, with the rank of lieutenant (junior
grade): sundry officers of the Naval Reserve
to be assistant paymasters in the Navy, with
the rank of ensign; and Ensign Edward G.
Cunney, United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey, to be an assistant civil engineer in
the Navy, with the rank of lieutenant
(junior grade) to rank from Juiy 1, 1944.
By Mr. McKELLAR, from the Committee on
Post Offices and Post Roads;
Sundry postmasters.
BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION INTRO¬
DUCED
Bills and a joint resolution were intro¬
duced, read the first time, and, by unan¬
imous consent, the second time, and re¬
ferred as follows:
By Mr. BALL:
S.2151. A bill for the relief of the village
of Cold Spring, Minn.; to the Committee on
Ciaims.
(Mr. VANDENBERG introduced Senate
bill 2152, which was referred to the Commit¬
tee on Banking and Currency, and appears
under a separate heading.)
By Mr. BAILEY:
S. 2153. A bill conferring jurisdiction upon
the United States District Court for the Mid¬
dle District of North Carolina to hear, deter¬
mine, and render Judgment upon any claim
arising out of the death of L. W. Freeman;
to the Committee on Claims.
By Mr. REYNOLDS:
S. 2154. A bill for the relief of Edgar B.
Grier; to the Committee on Claims.
By Mr. STEWART:
S. 2155. A bill to transfer jurisdiction over
the Chattanooga National Cemetery, Chat¬
tanooga, Tenn., from the Department of the
Interior to the War Department, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Public
Lands and Surveys.
By Mr. KILGORE (for Mr. Wallgren) ;
S. 2156. A bill for the relief of Albert J.
Walch; to the Committee on Claims.
By Mr. PEPPER:
S. 2157. A bill for the relief of Elmer R.
Kinsey; and
S. 2158. A bill for the relief of Mr. and
Mrs. James E. McGhee; to the Committee on
Claims.
S. J. Res. 154. Joint resolution providing
for paying the expenses of returning certain
nationals of the United States from the Phil¬
ippine Islands to the continental United
States; to the Committee on Claims.
INCREASE OP EXEMPTION LIMITATION ON
REGISTRATION OP SECURITIES
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
last Friday I referred to a letter received
by me from the Chairman of the Securi¬
ties and Exchange Commission discus¬
sing the question of the revision of the
Securities and Exchange Commission
rules so as to facilitate the financing of
small business in the post-war era.
I ask consent to introduce a bill this
morning to increase the exemption limit
on the registration of securities from
$100,000 to $300,000, which, as I under-
stafid the Chairman of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, has his ap¬
proval. I also understand that it will
cover substantially the field where as¬
sistance and encouragement are neces¬
sary in connection with the financing of
post-war small business.
Therefore, Mr. President, I am intro¬
ducing the bill and asking that it be re¬
ferred to the Committee on Banking and
Currency, and I am renewing an expres¬
sion of the hope that the subject itself
may not be much longer entirely ignored
by the committee.
There being no objection, the bill
(S. 2152) to amend Section 3 (b) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, so as
to permit exemption of security issues
not exceeding $300,000 from the provi¬
sions of such act, was received, read
twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on Banking and Currency.
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 21 (legislative day, September 1), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Aiken (for himself, Mr. Ship-
stead, and Mr. Ferguson) to the ])ill (H. R. 4485)
authorizing' the construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
viz :
1 On page 1, at end of line 6, Itefore the semicolon insert
2 the following: including the Samt Lawrence seaway and
3 power project”.
9-21-44 - B
in
?3
0
►1
Hj
0^
PI
2
%
>-<
w
CD
0-
P3
53
0
to
M
1— <
CD*
1^
CD
0
t3
ot’
1— >
rl"
P
D*
(Tt-
(t>
<
ri*
0
P
O'
a<
p
(D
P
D
w
Q<
K
PJ
S'
H
H
er
W
(p
PJ
>0
P
3.
M
D
<P
M
A
CO
o
rj)
a>
c/5
CD O
^ o
cn ^
r o
^7-
fO
3' ^
S ^0
iTD
a"
o
w
^'’ o •
S’^ w
•-! p
a 3‘
2 « 00,
a|3
o
rji
a
9
O O
• p
o
o
m
rt)
a-
O'
£ g
1 ® ^
^ pv,
a £2.
3 o £3
p. a (JO
l-b P.
2 <1
a
w
s^;
Hb
O
l-i
>
tn
2
D
PI
2
H
X
X
00
cn
* -A* • ^ f' * • # »
. ' * ' I''
0*
• K'
. »-'f*
•?
>, » *»
I I
J •
» \
A •
IV I
l<
t
>M I 'I
*
•4
il
1
i
rt •
V
U
i ^.
'■t.
1'
OmCE OE BUDOST AlTD EIMCE
Legislative Reports and Service Section
7Sth-2nd, No. I59
DIGEST OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(issued November 22, 19^4, for actions of Tuesday, Noverader 21, 1944)
(For staff of the Department only)
jippTc^riat ioirs- . 4 '
pensus of Agriculture. . .4
Committee assignments.,. . 2
Crop insurance..........!
Electrification, . . 5
Farm program,., . .6
Federal-State relation-?
ships.. . . . . . . — ,l4
CONTENTS
Fertilizer, . . 6
Flood control . . . 5
Forestry. . . 6
Irrigation . . . 5
Labor, . .S,15
Nominations. . . .' . 9
Post-war planning . 3
HOUSE
Property management ,. .9, 12
Reclamation. . I3
Reconversion, . ,,,,, ,*4,9,14
Reorganization., . . .15
Soil conservation. , 6
Statistics., . 4
T r an sp or t at lio'n ,,,,.,,3,7,11
Wool investigations.. . . .10
1. CROP INSURANCE, Began debate on H. R. 4911, to amend (.the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (pp. 8400-21), Hep, Cox, G-a, , stated that "the.-iiommittee on Agriculture
had endeavored to cure defects of previous crop insurance legislation. They
have undertaken to make the operation self-sustaining, and make farming a more
stable business." (p. 8400). Rep. Tarver, Ga,,'^ spoke against the legislation
declaring the plan to be "futile in characte^;^^' (pp* S400-3). R»p . Murray,
Wis.t also, criticized the bill (pp. S4o4-5c^. Rep. Flannagan, Va. , inserted
WFA's report on the bill (p. 8407).
Agreed to the following amendments by:,.'
Rep. Andresen, Minn., to extend/unsurance to oats, barley, and rye, if
sufficient actuarial dat^are available (p. S4l8) .
Rep, Hall, N. Y. , to includa.-ihe insuring of all fruits, if sufficient
actuarial data are available (pv 84l8).
Rep. Brown, Ga, , to reduce to 50 the number of farms which- must file ap¬
plications in any cdunty before insurance .can be provided (p. 84l^.
Rep, Crawford, Mich,, to include the insuring of dry beans-, if sufficient
actuarial data afe available (p. 84lS) .
Rep, Lemke, N, Dak,..,/ to restrict insurance payments for loss of crops only
when the crops are growing, unharvested, unthreshed, or unpacked
(p. 8418). ; ■ . • *
Rep, Cole, N, Y/,. to includfe . the insuring of potatoes and. other Vegetable^
if sufficient actuarial data are available (p. 84l8),.
Rejected Rep. Tarver’s, Ga, , amendment to strike out the enacting clause
(pp. 8420-1). M ring the discussion of this amendment Rep. -Tarver stated that
the .purpose of .Ahe bill "is not 50 .much to work out a sound program of crop
insurance for-/the benefit of the farmers, but that lit is to devise .some ways
and means by’ vdiich this useless -Federal Bureau-may be continued" (p, '8420).
-2. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Rep.-Brehm, Ohio, resigned from the Mines and Mining
Committee and the Public Lands Committee (p. S376)*
3. ROAD iydTHORiZATIONS. . The Rules Committee reported , a resolution for considera¬
tion/ of H. R, 4915» the road-authorization bill (pp. 8400, 8423),
4. AMOPRIATIONS; STATISTICS; CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE. Received (Nov. 20) from the
president suuulemental a-upropriation estimates for the Commerce Department,
for expanding a monthly survey of the labor force in connection with program
2 ■■
of statistics for reconversion and for the Census of Agriculture
(H. Doc. 77^)* To' Appropriations Committee'." ' ;'
- -■ ‘v ■ - • ^ _ _
- , J
• i
5* FLOOD CONTROL. Began debate ori'H. R. 44S5j "the l.fcittington flood-control hill
4 ■ ‘ (pp-. S344-72>. • : . . . . . . ,u,
. . Agreed to the committee .amendments except for , the foil-owing.^ which were
. ‘ ‘held over: Providing for the .disposition of Surplus .electric energy hy the
• • . -Seeretary of the Interior as .modified -hy Sen*- .'Bail Qy ’ s (N . C . ) amenthnent . so
• • ■ *as to provide for the complete .coordination of such .power .Yith other power
• -development s v/ithin a given .area • (pp-. S348-50) ; prqyiding 'bh^'b the Secretary
, ,«.of -the Interior may construct and operate •-•such additional irrigation works
• . "'as' he deems necessary in Connection pro jects which "the , Secretary .of ^War deter-.,
mines may he utilized for irrigation purposes (pp. S350-'l): providing for the
establishment of the Missouri Valley Commission (p. S35^) ; and authorizing theyr
Chief of Engineers to make examinations of any privately-o^Amied or operated dam^
constrirction across navigable waters (pp. 8355~6)*
Agreed to an amendment by Sen. Oyerton, La.-, to provide for reimbursement
to- local authorities for actual cost of lands,, right s-of-v^ay, and flowag’e ease^
ments required for the Mississippi River levee set-backs (p. S356).'
Sen. Murray,. Mont., spoke opposing, the bill, stating, '’I believe,- that the
bill .... does- not adequately protect the. rights and interests of the,, upper
. valLeyv;States in the Mississippi River Basin" (p. 8344). , #
-• ' . Agrepd to Sen. Dailey,' s (N. C._) resolution to discharge the. Agriculture I
and Forestry Committee from further oonsideratio-n of S. 2100, providing for
the development of navigation, irrigation, and flood control on the' Missouri £
River, and that the bill be referred -to the ;Commerce Committee (p. 8343).
The re'solu,tion providing for the discharge of the Agricultp.re and 'pf.
Forestry Cphimitte,e from further consideration of S. 2089 (similar to S. 2100)
• 'and referring the bill to the Commerce- Committee, -was laid op the table followtjf
ing Sen. Bailey's statement that he and Sen. Murray plan , to discuss the situa-'^
tion before Sen. Murray introduces the bill in the. YS'th Congress (p. 8343).
. / Sen. O’Mahoney, Wyo., received consent to have the report prepared at the
Array and Bureau of Reclamation engineers' conference in Omaha printed as a
supplement to S. Doc. I9I (p. 8343).
^.JS’ARM PROGRAM. ’Sen. Aiken, Vt., submitted resolutions of the Ft. State Grange"'
'favoring a long-time soil-building, fertilizer , and reforestation program;
-op-oosing the co-nstruction of the Wilder and West River Dams, Vt^-;.- and favor¬
ing preservation of the sugar-maple f o.re st s .through an educati'onal program.
To Agriculture and Forestry and Commerce Committees.. (.p.-,‘8337-).. ■ ,
-7..- TRANSPORTATION; FREIGHT RATES. Sen. Maloney, .Conn., inserted a.Hartfo.rd C of
C letter favoring -H. R. 2720,, which "would' so clear- the present Interstate
Commerce Act as to, preserve for shippers, consignees, and. carriers the con¬
ference method of rate making, whic4 for many years has not only served but
proved satisfactory to all pa.rt'ies of interest" Cpp.- 8337“8).
r ‘ M. , ■ ^
t • ■ * i • ' • ’
8. WAGS STABILIZATION. Received the National War Labor Board’s Aug. report on
stabilization of-twages and salaries (p. 833^). .
9. NOMINATIONS. Received from the President nominations as follows (p. 8372) 5
Surplus Property .Board: Robert A, -Hurley, Conn., and-Lt, Col. Edxvard
Heller, Calif. ' " '
■ Office of War Mobilization and Reoonversion advisory board members, includ-i
ing Edward A. O’Neal, Ala., James G. Patton, Colo., and Albert S. Goss, Wash*
YH'i-h congeess
2i) Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Noi^mbee 21, 1944
Ordered to be printed
AMENDMENT
Reported by Mr. Bailey, from the Committee on Commerce, to
the hill (H. K. 4485) aiitlioriziiig the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for Hood control, and for
other purposes, viz : Amend section 5 by striking out all the
language after the word ‘"cooperatives” and the period on
page 4, line 25, and ending on page 5, line 7, and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
1 The sale of such electric power as may be generated at
2 reservoir projects shall lie made at the point of production,
3 without special privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
4 for the complete coordination of such power and energy with
5 other power developments, both private and public, in the
6 area contiguous with such projects. It shall be stipulated in
11_21-44 - E
1
2
connection with any sale that any and all savings realized
2 by the purchasers shall be passed on under Federal regulation
3 where no State regulation exists to the consuming public:
I
4 Provided, That unless 90 per centum of the firm power pro-
5 duced at such projects shall be demanded or purchased within
6 three years after completion of construction of such projects,
7 the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct trans-
8 mission lines for the purpose of selling such power at whole-
9 sale.
10 So that section 5 as modified wall read as follows :
11 Sec. 5. Electric power and energy generated at reser-
12 voir projects under the control of the War Department and
13 in the opinion of the Secretary of War not required in the
14 operation of such projects shall be delivered to the Secretary
lb of the Interior, who shall transmit and dispose of such Powel¬
ls and energ}' in such manner as to encourage the most wide¬
ly spread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers
13 consistent with sound business principles, the rate schedules
19 to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the
20 Federal Power Commission. Preference in the sale of such
21 power and energy shall be given to public bodies and
22 cooperatives. The sale of such electric power as may be
2^ generated at reservoir projects shall be made at the point
21 of production, without special privilege or discrimination,
so as to provide for the complete coordination of such power
25
1
2
O
O
4
5
6
7
8.
9
10
U
and energy ^Yit]l other power developments, both private
and public, in the area contiguous with such projects. It
shall be stipulated in connection with any sale that any and
all savings realized b}^ the purchasers shall be passed on
under Federal regulation wdiere no State regulation exists,
to the consuming public: Provided, That unless 90 per
centum of the firm power produced at such projects shall be
demanded or purchased within three years after completion
of construction of such projects, the Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to construct transmission lines for the purpose
of selling such power at wholesale.
I
I
Qj
<V
(V
CL
c*
o
W. o
r-^
O
O-
!z:
o
§
w
1*3
50
to
Z S O
P M CS
s
^ c«
2
o
w
m
S'
p- 3
^ S-
JS H-I •
-! O
'-: o
M H-h
l-h o
o
i-i '-S
5ti
CD
o ^
3 O
3 3
O ®
2 ^
5 cr*
B
s'
•'
CD
cr '
HJ
o
o ^
C-.
8
? ?
a
^P‘
00
or s
a>
<x>
>
m
z
D
PI
z
H
•?
00
to u
mQ
M o
tn
M
03
78th CONGKESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
November 21, 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENTS
Intended to be proposed by Mr. O’Mahoney (for himself, Mr.
'Austin, Mr. Busitfield, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Clark of
Idaho, Mr. Downey, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hayden, Mr. John¬
son of Colorado, Mr. Danger, Mr. McCarran, Mr. Mc¬
Farland, Mr. Milliktn, Mr. Murdock, Mr. Murray,
Mr. Hye, Mr. Bobertson, Mr. Scrugham, Mr. Thomas
of Utah, Mr. Thomas of Idaho, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr.
Wilson) to the bill (H. B. 4485) authorizing the construc¬
tion of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood
control, and for other purposes, viz; At the proper place in
the bill insert the following :
1 ^Tn connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
2 the rivers of the Hation through the construction of works
3 of improvement, for navigation or flood control, it is hereby
4 declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the
11-21-44 - F
1
2
O
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
interests and rights of the States in determining the develop¬
ment of the watersheds within their borders and likewise ,
their interests and rights in water utilization and control;
to preserve and protect to the fullest possible extent estab¬
lished and potential uses, for all purposes, of the waters of
the Nation’s rivers; to facilitate the consideration of projects
on a basis of comprehensive, basin-wide development; and
to hmit the authorization and construction of navigation
works to those in which a substantial benefit to navigation
will be realized therefrom and which can be operated con¬
sistently with appropriate and economic use of the waters
of such rivers by other users.
“In conformity with this policy:
“(a) Plans, proposals, or reports of the Chief of Engi¬
neers, War Department, for any works of improvement for
navigation or flood control not heretofore or herein author¬
ized, shall be sul)mitted to the Congress only upon compliance
with the provisions of this paragraph (a) . Investigations
which form the basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports
shall he conducted in such a manner as to give to the affected
State or States, during the course of the investigations, in¬
formation developed by the investigations and also oppor¬
tunity for consultation regarding plans and proposals, and,
to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers,
opportunity to cooperate in the investigations. If such
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
investigations in whole or part are concerned with the use
or control of waters arising west of the ninety-seventh merid¬
ian, the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Secretary of
the Interior, during the course of the investigations, informa¬
tion developed by the investigations and also opportunity for
consultation regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent
deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity
to cooperate in the investigations. The relations of the
Chief of Engineers with any State under this paragraph (a)
shall be with the Governor of the State or such official or
agency of the State as the Governor may designate. The
terai Effected State or States’ shall include those in which
the works or any part thereof are proposed to he located;
those which in whole or part are both within the drainage
basin involved and situated in a State lying wholly or in
part west of the ninety-eighth meridian; and such of those
which are east of the ninety-eighth meridian as, in the
judgment of the Chief of Engineers, will he substantially
affected. Such plans, proposals, or reports and related in¬
vestigations shall he made to the end, among other things,
of facilitating the coordination of plans for the construction
and operation of the proposed works with other plans involv-.
ing the waters which would he used or controlled by such
proposed w^orks. Each report submitting any such plans
or proposals to the Congress shall set out therein, among
4
1 other things, the relationship between the plans for con-
2 struction and operation of the proposed works and the plans,
3 if any, of the affected States and of the Secretary of the
4 Interior. The Chief of Engineers shall transmit a copy
5 of his proposed report to each affected State, and, in case
6 the plans or proposals covered hy the report are concerned
7 with the use or control of waters which rise in whole or in
8 part west of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secretary
9 of the Interior. Within ninety da3^s from the date of receipt
10 of said proposed report, the written views and recommenda-
11 tions of each affected State and of the Secretarj^ of the
12 Interior may he submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The
IS Secretary of War shall transmit to the Congress, with such
14 comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate,
15 the proposed report together with the submitted views and
16 recommendations of affected States and of the Secretary
17 of the Interior. The Secretary of War may prepare and
18 make said transmittal any time following said ninety-day
19 period. The letter of transmittal and its attachments shall be
20 printed as a House or Senate document.
21 ‘‘ (b) The authorizations for projects described as follows
.22 in this Act shall he subject to the provisions of this para-
23 graph (b) :
‘‘Rowleshurg Eeservoir on the Cheat Eiver.
“Youghiogheny River Basin.
25
1
‘‘Ra3^stown Eeservoir on the Juniata River.
2 “Connecticnt River Basin.
3 “Section 3 of the Act approved August 18, 1941 (55
4 Stat. 638), paragraph entitled ‘Connecticut River Basin’, is
5 amended 1)}^ striking out tlie words ‘with such further modi-
6 fications as may l)e found jnstihahle in the discretion of the
^ Secretary of AYar and the Chief of Engineers’.
8 “If a written objection to the authorization of an}" of the
9 above-descril)ed projects is filed with the Secretary of \Yar
10 within ninety da3"s after the date of such authorization or
11 the date of this Act, whichever may be later, b}" the Gov-
12 ernor of any affected State (as defined in paragraph (a)
10 of this section), then the Chief of Engineers (1) shall give
;14 opportnnit}^ to be heard to representatives accredited b}^ the
^5 Governor of each affected State; (2) shall undertake such
investigations or reinvestigations as he deems appropriate in
Yi the circumstances ; and (3) shall pre])are a review report and
P5 recommendations in the light of said objections an'd hearings
19 and shall transmit a co])}^ thereof to each affected State. The
20 review report shall l)e of such scope as the Chief of Enginers
21- deems appropriate in the circumstances. Thereupon, within'
22 ninety dai^s from the date of receipt of said review report, the
/
23 written views and recommendations of each such State may
/
24 be submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The Secretary of
A. II. E. 4485— F - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
()
War shall transmit to the Congress, with sncli comments and
recommendations as he deems appropriate, the review report,
togfether with the submitted views and recommendations of
such States. The Secretary of War may prepare and make
said transmittal an}^ time following said ninety-day period.
The letter of transmittal and its attachments shall be printed
as a House or Senate document. The authorization in ques¬
tion, with such modifications of the plans for works as may
have been recommended in the review report of the Chief
of Engineers, shall he effective on the date when said docu¬
ment is printed, if the Secretary of War concurs in said
review report and if there is no objection thereto set forth
in a snl)mission of views and recommendations made by a
State in accordance with the above procedure. The author¬
ization, if objections thereto are set forth in such a submission,
shall not be effective unless and until otherwise provided h}'
subsequent Act of Congress.
“Aliy authorization hereaftel made based on a plan,
proposal, or report which has been made to the Congress
prior to the date of this Act but which has not been hereto¬
fore or herein authorized, shall likewise he subject to the
provisions of this paragraph (b).
“(c) The use for navigation, in connection with the
operation and maintenance of such works herein or hereafter
authorized for construction, of waters arising in States lying
7
1 wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be
2 only such use as does not conflict with any beneficial con-
3 sumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or
4 partly west of the ninety-eighth meridan, of such waters for
5 domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining, or in-
6 dustrial purposes.
7 ^‘ (^) The Secretary of the Interior, in making investi-
8 gations of and reports on works for irrigation and purposes
9 incidental thereto shall, in relation to an affected State or
10 States (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section), and to
11 the Secretary of War, be subject to the same provisions re-
12 garding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports as pre-
13 scribed in paragraph (a) of this section for the Chief of
14 Engineers and the Secretary of War. In the event a suh-
15 mission of views and recommendations, made by an affected
16 State or by the Secr(';aiy of War pursuant to said provisions,
17 sets forth objections to the plans or proposals covered by the
«
18 report of the Secretary of the Interior, on grounds not in-
19 consistent with paragraph (c) of this section, the proposed
.20 works shall not be deemed autlijifgized except upon approval
21 by an Act of Congress; and subsection 9 (a) of the Recla-
22 mation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) and subsection
23 3 (a) of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418), as
24 amended, are hereby amended accordingly.”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
On page 5, strike out lines 8 to 16, inclusive, and
insert the following:
“Sec. 6. That the Secretary of War is .authorized to
contract for water storage for any beneficial uses or purposes
with States, legal subdivisions thereof. State and interstate
agencies, municipalities, public, quasi public, or private
corporations, firms, associations, or individuals on such
terms and conditions as he mav deem reasonable, when
storage capacity for any such uses or purposes is or may
be made available at any reservoir now or hereafter con¬
structed by the War Department: Provided, That the right
to the use of water for such purposes shall have been estab¬
lished by proceedings in conformity with State laws: And
provided further, That no such water storage shall be in
conflict with, or adversely afl'ect, then existing lawful uses
of water. All moneys received from such contracts shall
be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscel-
laneous receipts.”
On page 5, strike out line 25 and lines 1 to 11,
inclusive, on page 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
“Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary of War
determines, upon recommendation by the Secretary of the
Interior, that in connection with any dam and reservoir
project constructed or to he constructed by the Secretary
of War additional works for the diversion and distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
of water may be utilized for irrigation, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to make a report and findings on the
construction of such additional works for the diversion and
distribution of water as he may deem necessary for such
pm'poses. Such report and findings shall be made in ac¬
cordance with and subject to the provisions of the Federal
reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388),
and Acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto) .
f
Within the limits of the water users’ repayment ability,
such report may be predicated on the allocation to irriga¬
tion of an appropriate portion of the cost of structures and
facilities used for irrigation. After authorization as pro¬
vided by law, the Secretary of the Interior shall construct,
operate, and maintain such additional works in accordance
with said Federal reclamation laws and shall be authorized
to deliver to such lands such portion of the water made
available by said dam and reservoir project as may be set
forth in said report and findings of the Secretary of the
Interior or as may be otherwise provided by law. The
provisions of this section shall not prejudice lawful uses
then existing nor water rights or priorities established under
applicable State laws, and shall not aj)ply to any dam or
reservoir heretofore or hereafter constructed which supple¬
ments any existing locally operated irrig/ition system or
other locally operated water facilities, nor shall this section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
nor the provisions of section 6 hereof apply to any dam
or reservoir heretofore constructed in whole or in part by
the Army engineers, which provides conservation storage
of water for irrigation pnr2)oses.”
On page 20, strike out lines 5 to 25, inclusive, and on
page 21 strike out lines 1 and 2 and insert the following:
‘‘Subject to such revision and coordination as the Sec¬
retary of War and the Secretaly of the Interior may agree
upon in a joint report to the Congress hereby directed to
be made on or before - , 1945 (and to he printed as
a House or Senate document) , the general comprehensive
plans set forth in House Document 475 and Senate Docu¬
ment 191, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, are
hereby approved and the initial stages recommended therein
are hereby authorized, provided, said joint report shall in¬
clude, among other things, (a) the allocation to various
purposes of the estimated costs of the works comprising the
plan, said allocations to be made on a basin-wide basis in
general conformity with the provisions and principles of
section 9 of the Eeclaniation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat.
1187) as modified with respect to flood control and navi-
gation by the practices of the Secretary of War; (b) pro¬
vision for regulations by the Secretary of War to govern
operation of the flood control or navigation ca2)acity of any
reservoir which, although agreed to be operated by the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
Bureau of Eeclamation, includes some capacity dedicated
and allocated for purposes of navigation or flood control;
and (c) provision that Avater stored in Fort Peck Eeser-
voir shall he made available for irrigation and other bene¬
ficial uses as additional multiple-purpose reservoirs are con¬
structed and x)laced in operation ; said multiple uses to include
irrigation and other beneficial consumptive uses, power, and
navigation.”
The foregoing amendments apply to H. E, 4485, as
reported by the Senate Commerce Committee on June 22,
1944, Eeport Numbered 1030, Calendar Numbered 1047.
o
>-<
Qi
>-i
O
Oi
cr
(0
p
cr
o
w
to
S 5
5 ^
O'
o
»d
O)
Q<
d
p
CD
i-S
S2
O
Cfi
CD
CO
1
2 P ri
CO
O
^2^
^ d'
CO N
o 3
p CfQ
Hb
O
*-J
*< CD
CD
i-J O
CO O
yg
H-!
o
oo
^ 3
O
cc
o
W
S.O
S
t-i >
<x>
cr
p jp
• >
hj w
w o
H tai
o t,-!
l-h H
O . ts
O
f-s
p
P-I
o
O
W
>
Ht, P
O P-I
l-S fD
Pj
P-
w
> ^
H
W
3 o
CO _ _
CD
■ CD
Hb
P P _ _ _
O
o- p
^ O "m
CO h-b Mh
-p g
>>
i-S
hs^
Hb CD
o ct>
h-
K
W
>
!2|
Q
H
W
S P
P ^
W w
p*i
i-i
ttj g.
§ S
CL,h;3 O'
O ^
O ^ P
P P
I O 1
H CO
t?d
(H O
W H>
W
- d
p
p ,
Pj-T
•' g
W r-
I S
w d
H P
H»i O
1-3
o
O
>
w
p
>
!2l
W
d
w
O
o
a
o
!2!
P
d
dJ
S 3
d dJ
o
> g
d O'
CO
^ S
PI
z
0
PI
z
H
(/}
00
MW
Pi O
CO 1:^
r/' dd
X
p
00
Ol
1
1944
8343
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. HATCH. The Senator has just
suggested the extension of the period of
the statute of limitations, which prompts
this suggestion : The Senator from Mich¬
igan [Mr. Ferguson] has today reported
from the committee a bill extending the
statute of limitations for a period of 6
months. The bill will go on the calen¬
dar today. I think it is very important
that that measure be taken up and dis¬
posed of at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I agree to that. My
remarks had reference to the action of
the Judiciary Committee in another
body. I did not know that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary had acted
today. I shall be very glad to have ac¬
tion taken on that measure as soon as
possible.
Mr. FERGUSON. I shall ask for ac¬
tion on the measure extending the period
of the statute of limitations for 6 months
as soon as it reaches the calendar.
Mr. BARKLEY. There will be no dif¬
ficulty in obtaining consideration of that
measure.
Mr. FERGUSON. On the other ques¬
tion, as I understand the rule, this is not
the time to argue the merits of the reso¬
lution. The question now before the
Senate is to decide to which committee
it should go. I am prepared to argue the
merits of the resolution, but T shall not
do so at this time, because this is not
the appropriate time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The Chair is advised by the par¬
liamentarian that under the wording of
the proposed resolution it should go to
the Committee on Military Affairs. The
language is as follows:
That a special committee of 10 Senators, to
be appointed by the President of the Senate,
is authorized and directed to make a full and
complete investigation of the facts relating
to the attack made by the Japanese armed
forces upon the Territory of Hawaii on De¬
cember 7, 1941.
The parliamentarian is of the opinion
that that is a military matter, and that
it should go to the Committee on Mili¬
tary Affairs. Has the Senator from
Michigan any objection to that?
Mr. FERGUSON. I have no objection.
As I stated in the beginning, I thought it
was appropriate that it go to the Com¬
mittee on the Judiciary; but there was
no intention to select a committee.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Of course, the Senator would have
the right to move that the resolution be
referred to any particular committee;
but the ruling of the Chair is that it
should go to the Committee on Military
Affairs. Without objection, it will be re¬
ferred to that committee.
FUNERAL EXPENSES OP THE LATE SEN¬
ATOR SMITH, OP SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. MAYBANK submitted the follow¬
ing resolution (S. Res. 337) , which was
referred to the Committee to Audit and
Control the Contingent Expenses of the
Senate ;
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Sen¬
ate hereby is authorized and directed to pay
from the contingent fund of the Senate the
actual and necessary expenses incurred by
the committee appointed by the Vice Presi¬
dent in arranging for and attending the
funeral of Hon. Ellison D. Smith, late a
Senator from the State of South Carolina,
upon vouchers to be approved by the Com¬
mittee to Audit and Control the Contingent
Expenses of the Senate.
CONTINUATION OP AUTHORITY FOR IN¬
VESTIGATION OP THE PRODUCTION,
TRANSPORTATION, AND MARKETING
OP WOOL
Mr. O’MAHONEY submitted the fol¬
lowing resolution (S. Res. 338), which
was referred to the Committee to Audit
and Control the Contingent Expenses of
the Senate:
Resolved, That Senate Resolution 160,
Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, agreed
to July 10, 1935, authorizing a special com¬
mittee to Investigate the production, trans¬
portation, and marketing of wool, as ex¬
tended, is hereby further extended and con¬
tinued in full force and effect during the
Seventy-ninth Congress; and the said com¬
mittee may report to the Senate at any time
prior to December 31, 1946. The said com¬
mittee hereby is authorized to expend from
the contingent fund of the Senate $5,000, in
addition to the amounts heretofore author¬
ized for the same purposes.
ANNIVERSARY OP THE STAR-SPANGLED
BANNER— SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP
Mr. RADCLIFFE submitted the follow¬
ing resolution (S. Res. 339), which was
referred to the Committee on Post
Offices and Post Roads:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Sen¬
ate that, September 12, 1944, having been the
one hundred and thirtieth anniversary of
the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner,
the Postmaster General should issue a special
postage stamp, of such denomination, of such
design, and for such period as he may de¬
termine, in commemoration of the author
of our national anthem, Francis Scott Key.
CHANGE OP REFERENCE OF BILL—
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The Chair lays before the Senate
a resolution coming over from a previous
day, which will be stated.
The resolution (S. Res. 332) submitted
by Mr. Bailey on November 16, 1944, was
read as follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on Agri¬
culture and Forestry be discharged from the
further consideration of the bill (S. 2100)
to provide for the improvement and develop¬
ment of navigation, irrigation, and control of
fioods on the Missouri River and its tribu¬
taries, for the promotion of the national de¬
fense, and for other purposes, and that it be
referred to the Committee on Commerce.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection to the present
consideration of the resolution?
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, with ref¬
erence to both the Senate Resolution 33^
and Senate Resolution 333, 1 believe I can
make a statement which will clear them
from the calendar.
I have talked with the senior Senator
from Iowa [Mr. Gillette] and he has
agreed that Senate bill 2100 may be with¬
drawn from the committee to which it
was referred, and referred to the Com¬
mittee on Commerce.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection to the present
consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the resolu¬
tion was considered and agreed to.
CHANGE OF REFERENCE OP BILL—
MISSOURI RIVER AUTHORITY
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The Chair lays before the Senate
a resolution coming over from a previ¬
ous day, which will be stated.
The resolution (S. Res. 333) submitted
by Mr. Bailey on November 16, 1944, was
read as follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on Agricul¬
ture and Forestry be discharged from the
further consideration of the bill (S. 2089) to
establish a Missouri River Authority to pro¬
vide for unified water control and resource
development on the Missouri River and sur¬
rounding region in the interest of the con¬
trol and prevention of fioods, the promotion
of navigation and reclamation of the public
lands, the strengthening of the national de¬
fense, and for other purposes, and that it be
referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, with re¬
spect to the bill introduced by the junior
Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray],
Senate bill 2089, I have had a conversa¬
tion with the Senator, who is present, and
who states that there is no intention at
this time to take up the bill in- the com-
mitee to which it was referred, and that
there will be no action at this Congress.
He has agreed that prior to introducing
the bill and having it referred in the next
Congress, he and I will have a conversa¬
tion to see if v/e cannot settle the ques¬
tion. It is agreeable to me to allow the
resolution to lie on the table until the
Congress expires.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, of
course, it is understood that I am not
committing myself on any question.
Mr. BAILEY. I understand. The Sen¬
ator and I will have a conversation to
try to settle the question. If we cannot
settle it, it will be presented again in the
form of a motion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection. Senate Resolu¬
tion 333 will lie on the table.
MISSOURI RIVER BASIN (S. DOC. NO. 191)
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, ear¬
lier in the session there was printed as
Senate Document No. 191 the report of
the Bureau of Reclamation on a plan for
the development of certain projects in
the Missouri Valley. After the submis¬
sion of that document the Army engi¬
neers and the Bureau of Reclamation had
a conference at Omaha, in which the two
groups of engineers perfected an inte¬
grated report. It is an engineering docu¬
ment, which combines the feasible as¬
pects of the Army engineers’ report for
the Missouri Valley and of the Bureau
of Reclamation report for the Missouri
Valley.
I ask unanimous consent that this in¬
tegrated report be printed as a Senate
document for the information of the
Senate as a supplement to Senate Docu¬
ment No. 191.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered,
PRONOUNCEMENT BY AMERICAN CATHO¬
LIC HIERARCHY ON INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION FOR PEACE
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. President, at the
close of a solemn conclave on interna-
s
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 21
8344
tional order, the American Catholic
Hierarchy, on Saturday last, released a
most profound pronouncement following
the deliberations of the Catholic bishops
of the United States. It appeared in the
Washington Sunday Times-Herald.
It is a statement of principles calling
for a post-war world of “freemen and
free nations with their freedom secured
under law.”
Because of the significance of this pro¬
nouncement, I had intended to ask unan¬
imous consent to have it printed in the
Appendix of the Record, but I am in-
foriAed that it appears in the Record of
yesterday at page A4775.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I also had intended to ask to
have printed in the Record the state¬
ment issued by the Catholic bishops. In
view of the statement of the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. Brooks], of course I shall
not ask that it be again printed.
SHAPING THE ECONOMIC FUTURE— EM¬
PLOYMENT OF VETERANS — ADDRESS
BY BRIG. GEN. FRANK T. HINES
[Mr. CAPPER asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Record an address
on the subject Shaping the Economic
Future — Employment of Veterans, delivered
by Brig. Gen. Frank T. Hines, Administrator
of Veterans’ Affairs and Administrator of
Retraining and Employment, before the
Academy of Political Science at New York
City, November 15, 1944, which will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
PROPOSED MISSOURI VALLEY AUTHOR¬
ITY-ADDRESS BY DAVID E. LILIEN-
THAL
[Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Record an address on
the subject of the proposed Missouri Valley
Authority, delivered by David E. Lilienthal,
Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority,
before the State convention of North Da¬
kota Farmers Union in Bismarck, N. Dak.,
November 3, 1944, which will appear hereafter
In the Appendix.]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The morning business is con¬
cluded.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre¬
sentatives, by Mr. McLeod, one of its
clerks, communicated to the Senate the
resolutions of the House adopted as a
tribute to the memory of Hon. Ellison
D. Smith, late a Senator from the State
of South Carolina.
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate proceed to the considera¬
tion of House bill 4485, the flood control
bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The bill will be stated by title for
the information of the Senate.
The Chief Clerk. A bill (H. R. 4485)
authorizing the construction 'of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for
flood control, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question is on agreeing to the
motion of the Senator from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Com¬
mittee on Commerce with amendments.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I am very glad to
yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BAILEY. I Wish to say to the
Senate that the Senator from Louisiana,
who has the floor and has yielded to me
for a moment, will have charge of this
bill. I intend to support him so far as
possible.
Beginning early in last April, the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana conducted hearings
on the flood control bill and the river
and harbor bill, and is now conducting
some rather abbreviated hearings on the
St. Lawrence seaway proposal. He has
worked with great diligence and under¬
standing. I feel that I owe him a great
debt of gratitude for his labors. I owe it
to him to make a statement on the floor
of the Senate.
I do not know of any other Senator so
competent to deal with our waterways
as is the senior Senator* from Louisiana.
I doubt if there could be found, in the
Senate or elsewhere, a man who could
work on this legislation as diligently and
patiently through the long summer
months, until just recently, as has the
Senator from Louisiana. I believe that
he knows more than any of us about the
waterways of the United States, includ¬
ing canals, rivers, and flood control
works. In the committee I lean upon
him almost completely in that field. The
hearings were very long and tedious.
The bills covered the whole country; but
the Senator from Louisiana stood to his
task day after day, and brought a great
deal of intelligence, as well as patience,
to his labors. I wish to thank him with
all my heart.
I have just one other word to say about
the matter. Whenever these bills come
up in the Senate, I read in the news¬
papers that our old “pork barrel” is back.
These bills relate to the whole post-war
activities. We have had no bills of this
character since the President vetoed the
last such bill in June 1940. The amounts
involved are enormous, but I do not think
anyone can justly say that the pending
bill is “pork barrel” legislation. On the
other hand, every project in the bill has
been approved by the Army engineers
as an economic undertaking, and nothing
has been put into the bill merely to please
any Senator or by way of distribution of
favor or patronage or “pork”.
With that statement, Mr. President, I
feel perfectly safe in leaving the whole
matter of the conduct of the bill in the
Senate to my distinguished friend the
senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr,
Overton].
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I wish
to thank the senior Senator from North
Carolina for the very complimentary ref¬
erences he has made to me and to my
work on the Commerce Committee. I
wish to say that I am very grateful to him
for the splendid cooperation he has given
me and the other members of the full
committee and the members of the sub¬
committee, and I wish particularly to
make acknowledgment to the junior
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Burton] and the
junior Senator from Oregon [Mr. Cor¬
don] for their very faithful attendance
at all times at all meetings of the sub¬
committee, which, as the Senator from
North Carolina has stated, lasted for
many days.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. Before the Senator
from Louisiana proceeds with the presen¬
tation of the bill, I should like to have it
made clear that I am opposed to the
consideration of this proposed legisla¬
tion at this time. I believe that the bill
as it now stands does not adequately
protect the rights and interests of the
upper valley States in the Missouri
River Basin, and that the bill is another
piece of legislation which does not ade¬
quately cover the situation in my sec¬
tion of the country, I believe it is just
another example of piecemeal legisla¬
tion. It seems to me that the Congress
would be acting wisely if consideration
of this legislation was passed over until
the next session, at which time we could
consider a more comprehensive bill cov¬
ering these flood-control projects and
also providing for a unified development
of the large river basins in the country.
Therefore, Mr. President, I wish to
have it clearly stated in the Record that
I am opposed to having the Senate pro¬
ceed to the consideration of this bill at
this time. I think it is unwise; I think
it does not adequately cover the prob¬
lems which should be covered in order
to meet the conditions which will con¬
front us when the war is over. If we are
to meet the great problems which will
confront this country at the end of the
war, I think we must have comprehen¬
sive legislation for the development of
these various river valleys. Especially in
the Missouri River Basin there is oppor¬
tunity for a huge program of reclama¬
tion and industrial development through
which we may provide homes for many
thousands of persons who can be set¬
tled in that part of the country after
the war is over. But that can only be
done by legislation more comprehensive
than the bill which is before us at this
time.
So, Mr. President, I wish to have the
Record show clearly that I am not in
favor of this legislation at this time.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
pending bill contemplates that the proj¬
ects to be authorized will be constructed,
for the most part, in the post-war period.
It is not exactly correct to say that all
the projects provided for in the bill are
post-war projects. The provision as now
written in the bill is as follows:
When the existing critical situation with
respect to materials, equipment, and man¬
power' no longer exists, and in any event not
later than immediately following the cessa¬
tion of hostilities in the present war, the
projects herein shall be initiated as expe¬
ditiously and prosecuted as vigorously as
may be consistent with budgetary require¬
ments.
It iS necessary Mr. President, that the
bill be enacted as promptly as possible,
because after the various projects have
been authorized by Congress, the Army
Engineers must proceed with the prep¬
aration of detailed plans. That work re-
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8345
quires considerable additional investiga¬
tion and study. Therefore, the sooner
the bill is passed the sooner can the
Chief of Army Engineers and the Corps
of Engineers proceed with the task of
perfecting the plans and dealing with the
projects which will be authorized.
Mr. President, as the senior Senator
from North Carolina has very well
pointed out, this bill is in no sense a pork
barrel bill. I do not think there is any
bill which comes before the Congress —
and I say this, not with particular refer¬
ence to the pending bill, but with refer¬
ence to flood control bills and river and
harbor bills generally — which undergoes
more careful scrutiny than do such bills
before they are submitted for the con¬
sideration of the Congress. The pending
measure is not a pork barrel bill, because
every project contained in it on which a
report has been made has been initiated
locally among local interests; and after
they had proposed the particular project,
the Congress of the United States au¬
thorized the making of a preliminary
survey and investigation of it.
The Chief of Army Engineers and the
Corps of Engineers cannot undertake an
investigation of any flood-control proj¬
ects or any river and harbor projects
unless they receive a mandate from the
Congress to do so. That mandate is con¬
tained in a direction and an authority
to make a preliminary examination and
survey of the proposed project. When
that is done, the Chief of Army Engi¬
neers sends the proposal to the district
engineer within whose jurisdiction the
project lies. The district engineer be¬
gins by collecting all the available data
the engineers have with reference not
only with respect to the project itself,
but with respect to the whole area and
with respect to its relation to other proj¬
ects and other streams. After the dis¬
trict engineer has made this preliminary
study, he sets down the matter for pub¬
lic hearing, and at the hearing represent¬
atives of local interests and all others
who are interested one way or the other
are given an opportunity to appear and
to be heard, and a record is made of the
testimony taken, as given by the propo¬
nents and the opponents of the project.
After that is done, the district engineer
proceeds to formulate a report on the
project, either favorable or unfavorable.
He sends it to the division engineer.
When it reaches the division engineer, it
undergoes close scrutiny at his hands.
When the division engineer has com¬
pleted his work, he sends the report to
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors. The Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors proceeds to the con¬
sideration of the project. At the re¬
quest of anyone in interest, public hear¬
ings are conducted, and again the whole
subject matter is reviewed and the testi¬
mony of witnesses for and against the
project is taken down.
After such thorough consideration has
been given by the Board of Engineers for
rivers and harbors, the board makes
such changes and modifications as it de¬
sires or recommends with respect to the
project, and submits its report.
The report is then sent to the Chief of
Engineers, who proceeds to the consider¬
ation of the project, and makes such
changes and alterations as he deems ad¬
visable.
After that has been done, Mr. Presi¬
dent, the project is not sent immediately
by the Chief of Engineers to the Congress,
because if it is a project in which the
Bureau of Reclamation is interested, or
in which the Federal Power Commission
is interested, the Chief of Engineers
sends his proposed report to the Com¬
missioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
and to the chairman of the Power Com¬
mission for their comments and obser¬
vations.
After that has been done the Chief of
Engineers submits the matter to the
Secretary of War, who transmits it to
the Congress, and it is then printed as a
public document, either as a House docu¬
ment or as a Senate document.
In addition to all the careful investi¬
gation to which I have referred and all
the public hearings which have been
conducted in reference to all the proj¬
ects, monthly meetings are conducted in
the city of Washington between the
Chief of Engineers and his staff, the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Recla¬
mation and his staff, the Chairman of
the Federal Power Commission and his
representatives, and the Land-Use Co¬
ordinator of the Department of Agri¬
culture. The purpose of the monthly
meetings is to consider the different
projects and the general picture with
reference to the proper utilization of the
waters of the Nation. The officials to
whom I have referred consult and un¬
dertake to harmonize their differences
and to come to an agreement as to what
is best for navigation, for flood control,
for irrigation, reclamation, power, and
for agricultural development of the ter¬
ritory through which the waters. flow.
Therefore, Mr. President, I do not be¬
lieve any other bill coming before the
Congress undergoes such careful scrutiny
by experts and is the subject of such
extensive public hearings as do the
various river-and-harbor bills.
What happens? A bill is introduced
either in the House or in the Senate, con¬
taining for the most part the various
projects which have been recommended
by the Chief of Engineers. The Flood
Control Committee of the House — if the
bill originates in the House, as it usually
does — or the Committee on Rivers and
Harbors of the House, sets the bill down
for hearings and the public is invited to
attend. All who are in favor of and all
who are opposed to any project contained
in either the flood-control bill or the
river-and-harbor bill are given an op¬
portunity to be heard before the
committee.
Take, for example, the particular bill
now before the Senate. Tire printed
pages of testimony covered in the House
hearings number 1,248. The period of
time covered in the House hearings was
from May 13, 1943, to February 23, 1944.
After the bill passed the House and came
to the Senate, the Senate Committee on
Commerce proceeded to conduct hear¬
ings, and the period of time covered by
the hearings on the bill in the Senate
committee was from May 29 to June 15,
1944, and the number of printed pages
in the record amounted to 816.
Mr. President, I wish to go back a step
with reference to the action taken by the
Chief of Engineers. I stated that all
projects had to be initiated in Congress
under authority for a preliminary exam¬
ination and survey. They are not all
approved, by any means. The majority
of them are not approved. The majority
of them are rejected. Since we passed
the Flood Control Act of 1941, which was
the last Flood Control Act to be passed,
the total number of proposals which were
investigated by the Army engineers was
203. Of those proposals only 78, or 38
percent, were approved. One hundred
and twenty-five or 62 percent, were re¬
jected.
So, Mr. President, I do not believe there
is any bill which undergoes closer legis¬
lative scrutiny, more searching engineer¬
ing scrutiny, and more diligent expert
scrutiny before it reaches the floor of
either the House or the Senate — I will in¬
clude in that statement even our revenue
and appropriation bills — than the var¬
ious flood control and river and harbor
bills. I wish to make that statement par¬
ticularly clear.
As stated by the Senator from North
Carolina this is not a pork-barrel bill.
So far as the Army engineers are con¬
cerned, they have been dealing with navi¬
gation projects for 124 years. They have
been dealing with flood-control projects
ever since flood-control projects became
a national obligation. I can say of the
Bureau of Reclamation that for 40 years
they have been studying what is neces¬
sary and proper in connection with the
problems of irrigation, and in connec¬
tion with other similar uses of water.
They have become experts in that field.
I believe that the Army engineers whom
we have, trained in peacetime work have
justified their training by the services
which they have rendered on the battle¬
fields of the world. I believe that the
Army engineers are by far the finest
group of engineers, not only in the his¬
tory of this Nation, but in the history of
the entire world. The magnificent engi¬
neering works which helped the progress
of our troops as they moved forward
toward the enemy were prepared,
planned, and constructed by engineers
who had received experience in the
United States of America, and its terri¬
tories during peacetime in connection
with rivers and harbors, and flood-con¬
trol work.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent to have printed at this point in the
Record as a part of my remarks a break¬
down by States of all the projects con¬
tained in the flood-control bill. I make
the request so that information on the
subject may be made available to Sena¬
tors who may be interested in the matter.
It is obviously impossible to segregate
by States the cost of projects which are
in more than one State. The tabulation
will show the total cost of such projects
in each State Involved, and allocated to
each State, instead of a distribution be¬
ing made. Such projects in the report
are marked with an asterisk.
There being no objection, the tabula¬
tion was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows;
8346
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
Projects in H. R. 4485 as reported out hy the Committee on Commerce on June 22, 1944
INote.— As it is obviously impracticable to segregate by States the costs of projects which are in more than 1 State, the tabulation below includes the total cost of such project
in each State involved. Such projects are marked with an asterisk]
First cost
Cost of maintenance and operation
$3, 202, 000
$4,000.
200, 000, 000
3, 800, 000
$20,000.
11,080,000
$61,000.
6, 013, 000
Local.
898, 600
Do,
329,000
Do.
1, 546, 000
Do.
517, 000
Do.
122, .500
Do.
865, 000
Do.
371,000
Do.
1, 005, 000
Do.
339, 000
Do.
465, 200
Do.
683,000
Do.
207,000
Do.
45, 000, 000
$250,000.
370, 000
$2,000.
1, 080, 000
Local.
520, 000
Do.
10, 000, 000
Do.
25, 000, 000
Do.
452, 160
Do.
69,000
Do.
15, 000, 000
$135,000.
Local maintenance of levees and chan¬
nels are additional.
18, 474, 000
$50,000.
6, 800, 000
$25,000.
4,'600, 000
$13,000.
19, 700, 000
$40,000'.
1, 300, 000
Local operation and maintenance of
all works except reservoirs is addi¬
tional. $4,000 Federal maintenance
of reservoirs.
8, 000, 000
' 3,868,200
$14,600 maintenance and operation for
channel by local interests.
460,000
Local.
600. 000
Do.
909, 000
Do.
200, 000, 000
7, 500, 000
$3,000.
220, 000
Local.
68, 500
Do.
30, 000, 000
7, 200, 000
6, 151, 000
$15,200.
35, 300, 000
$223,000.
14, 400, 000
$50,000.
V 73, 000
Local.
734. 000
Do.
9, 000
Do.
70, 000. 000
10. 000, 000
300, 000
Do.
111, 500
None.
70. 000, 000
15, 000, 000
$65,000.
270, 000
25,000
Local.
Do.
13, 000
Do.
200, 000, 000
. 17, 830
Do.
236, 000
Do.
10, 000, 000
35, 000, 000
200, 000, 000
8, 445, 000
Do.
70, 000, 000
70, 000, 000
200, 000, 000
Arizona:
Alamo Reservoir, Bill Williams River.. . . . . .
•Mississippi River, Cairo, HI., to Baton Rouge, La . . . . . . . . . . . .
Narrows Reservoir and local flood protection on Little Missouri River > . . . . .
Btoely Mountain Reservoir, Ouachita River . . . . . . .
•Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana . .
Arkansas River main stem:
Fort Smith, levee, floodwall, and appurtenances .
Van Bm'en, levee, floodwall, and appurtenances _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. Crawford County levee district,: levee" and appurtenances . .
McLean Bottom levee district No. 3, levee and diversion . . . . . .
Dardanelle drainage district i (near Dardanelle), levees and appurtenances.. . . . .
Pope County levee district No. 1 and Conway County levee district Nos. 3 and 7 ' (west of Morrilton), levee, cut¬
off, and appintenanees. ' ♦
Conway County levee district No. 6, levee, and appurtenances .
Conway County levee districts Nos. 1, 2, and 8, levees and appurtenances . . . . . . . .
Roland drainage district, levee and appurtenances _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Little Rock levees i (east end Fourche Bayou), levees, intercepting ditch, 2 cut-offs, and appurtenances . .
Idttle Rock to Pine Bluff ' (head of Fourche Island to Pennington Bayou),: levees and appurtenances. .
Tucker Lake area,’ levees and appurtenances . . . . .
•White River Basin _ _
California:
San Diego, San Diego River, levee _ _ _ _ _ _
Ventura, lower Ventura River, levee. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ojai, Stewart Canyon (Ventura River Basin), debris, ba.sin, and channel . . . . .
Santa Ana River Ba.sin, including Lytle and Cajon Creeks :.. . . . . . . . . . .
Los Angeles and San Oabriel Basin and Ballonh Creek > _ _ _
Watsonville, Pajaro River, levee . . . . . . . .
Gilroy, Pajaro River Basin, levee . . . . . . . . . .
Sacramento E iver,' initial stage consisting of extension of local protection along mam stem, levees, and other local pro¬
tection along tributaries, low Table Mountain Dam, and Black Butte Dam.
Folsom Reservoir, American River . . . . . . .
Isabella Reservoir, Kern River... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Termmus Reservoir, Kaweah River, and Success Reservoir, Tule River . . . . . .
Pine Flat Dam, Kings River.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Merced County stream group _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Bums Creek Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . $171,800
Bear Creek Re.servoir . . . . . . . 292, 000
Owens Creek Reservoir... . . . . . . 168, 800
Mariposa Creek Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . 417, 600
Black Rascal Canal _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.8, 800
Ow'ens Creek Canal _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16,200
Miles Creek Canal.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6,500
lower San Joaquin River... . . . . . . . ; _ _ _ _
New Meloncs Reservoir; Stanislaus River, contribution to Don Pedro Reservoir to be built by local interests;
channel improvements and levees on San Joaquin River and tributaries.
Littlejohn Creek and Calaveras River group . . . . . .
Farmington Reservoir, Littlejohn Creek . . . . . . . $1,561,000
Enlarge Hogan Reservoir, Calaveras River . . . 1, P42, 000
Diversions, channels, levees, and dikes _ _ _ _ _ 365, 200
Conn Creek Reservoir, Napa River . . . . . .
Colorado:
Colorado Springs, Fountaine Que Bouille River, floodway and appimtenances . .
Trinidad, Purgatoire River, channel and levees. _ _ _ _ _ _
•Missouri River Basin i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Cherry Creek Reservoir :.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Morrison, Bear Creek, channel clearing . . . . . . . . .
Creede, Willow Creek, timber flume _ _ _ _ _
Connecticut:
•Connecticut River Basin . . . . . . . .
•Thames River Basin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Thomaston Reservoir, Housatonlc River Basin _ _ _ _ _
Georgia;
•Clark Hill Reservoir, Savannah River _ _ _ _ _
•Allatoona Reservoir,' Mobile River Basin . . . . . . . . . .
Hawaii; Hanapepe, Kauai Island, Hanapepe River, T. H., local flood protection . . .
Idaho:
Snake River between Hei.se and Roberts, channel improvement.. . .
Weiser, Snake River, bank protection . . . . . .
Illinois:
•Ohio River Basin _ _ _ _ _ _ '. _ _ _ _ _
•Upper Mississippi River Basin . . . . . .
Galena, Galena River, local protection . . . . . . . . .
Illinois River, floodway at Big Prairie drajnage and levee district . . . . . .
Indiana:
•Ohio River Basin _ _
Iowa:
Red Rock Dam, Des Moines River '. . . . . . . . . .
Des Moines, local flood protection along Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers _ _ _ _
Sabula, Mississippi River _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Elkport, Turkey River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
•Mis.souri River Basin : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DenLson, Boyer River — local protection . . . . . . . . . . .
Hamburg, Nishnabotna River.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
•Upper Mississippi River Basin' . . . . . . . . . . .
Kansas:
•Arkansas River IJasin ' . . . . . . , _ _
•Missouri River Basin ' . . . . . . . . . . . .
•Kansas Citys, Kans. and Mo.,' local protection _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Kentucky;
•Ohio River Basin . . . . . . . . . . .
The following projects have been added to the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin:
Taylorsville, Salt River, local protection (maintenance and operation) . . . $129, 350
Kentucky River Basin,' Jessamine and Booneville Reservoirs ($19,000 maintenance and operation) _ 23, 756, 000
Jackson Cut-Off, Kentucky River Basin (local maintenance and operation) . . 66, 000
Middlesborough, Yellow Creek— local protection (local maintenance and operation) . . 205, 200
Rough River — channel improvement (local maintenance and operation) _ _ 320, 000
Barnett Creek, Rough River Basin— channel rectification (local maintenance and operation) . . 40,000
•Mississippi River— Cairo, Ill., to Baton Rouge, La . . . .
Footnote at end of table.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Projects in H. R. 4485 as reported out by the Committee on Commerce on June 22, 1944 _ Continued
8347
Louisiana:
•Mississippi River, Cairo, Ill., to Baton Rouge, La . 1 . . .
•Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon, Ark. and La . . . . . .
Red River, vicinity of Shreveport, bank protection . . . . . . . ' _ ^ . .
Maryland: ♦Ohio River Basin . . . . . . . . . . .
The following project has been added to the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin:'*Youghi'o'- .
gheny River Basin ($423,000 maintenance and operation) . r . . . . . . $37, 970, 000
Massachusetts: ’ ’
West Hill Reservoir, Blackstone River Basin . . . . . . . . ■ . .
Worcester Diversion, Blackstone River Basin . . .- . . .' _ '..'I”'"]
•Connecticut River Basin 1 . . . . . . . . .
•Thames River Basin ' . . . . . . . . .
Minnesota: Red Lake River channel improvement and Red Lake control structures . . .
Mississippi:
•Mississippi River, Cairo Ill., to Baton Rouge, La _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yazoo River tributaries _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I.
Yazoo River,'Satartia area _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .1.1”””””
Missouri:
•Upper Mississippi River Basin 1 . . . . . . . . ; . .
•White River Basin 1 _ _ _ t _ _ _ _ _ l.l.llllllll”
Ste. Genevieve levee district No. 1,> levee extension . . . . 111””””
•Missouri River Basm ' . . . . . . . . . . . !■. .
Chariton River, local protection . . . . . . . .
•Kansas Citys, Kans. and Mo..' local protection . . . . . . . .
•Mississippi River. Cairo, Ill., to Baton Rouge, La . . . . . . . . . . 1..”
Montana:
Harlem, Milk River,' local protection . . . . . . . . .
Havre, Milk River, local protection . . . . . . . . . 1 _ 1.1.
Nebraska: •Missouri River Basin ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Hampshire: •Connecticut River Basin ' . . . . . . .
New York:
•Ohio River Basin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The following project has been added to the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin: Lake Chautauqua
and Chadakoin ($3,135,600, local maintenance and operation) River area, Conewango Creek.
•Southern New York and eastern Peimsylvania,' Sasquehauna River Basin _ _ _ _ _
Panther Mountain Reservoir, Black River _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Chittenango Creek, channel improvement.. . .-. _ _ _ _ _
Owasco inlet and outlet, and tributaries, channel improvement and appurtenant works . . . . .
Mount Morris Reservoir, Genesee River _ _ _ _ • . . . . . . . .
North Carolina;
•Roanoke River Basin, Buggs Island and Philpott Reservoirs . . . . . . . . .
•Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Wilkesboro Reservoir _ _ _ _ _
North Dakota:
Bald Hill Reservoir, Sheyenne River... . . . . . ...jl _ _ _ _ _
Reservoirs on Tongue and Pembina Rivers.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Reservoir on Park River _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
•Missouri River Basin _ _ _
Beulah, Knife River, local protection works _ _ _ _ _
Hazen, Knife River, local protection works . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ohio: •Ohio River Basin _ .“Tt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The following projects have been added to the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin:
Dillonvale, Short Creek (local maintenance and operation) . . . . . . ,$94. 100
Adena, Short Creek Gooal maintenance and operation) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 64, 100
Burr Oak Reservoir, Hocking River (plus $6,000 maintenance and operation; local interests to maintain
water supply portion in addition) . . . . . . . . . 400, 000
Oklahoma:
•Arkansas River Basin . . . . . . . . .
Arkan.sas River main stem:
Tulsa and West Tulsa, bridge modification . . . . .
Jenks, levee _ _ _ _ — . . . . . . . . . .
Near Fort Gibson, levees and appurtenances _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dirty Creek bottom, levee and appurtenances _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .-. . .
^ Tucker Lake bottom ,levee and appurtenances.. . . . . . . . . . . .
Braden bottom, levee and appurtenances _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Big Skin Bayou-Camp Creek bottom, levee and appurtenances. . . . . . . . . . .
Moffett bottom, levees, relocations, and appurtenances. _ _ _ _ _ _
Oregon:
Nehalem River _ ■ . . .
W niamette River Ilasin ' _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ -ly _
Arlington, Alkali Canyon _ ^ . ^ - - - - - - - -
Coquille River . . . . . . — - - - - - - - - - - — .
Pennsylvania:
Susquehanna River at Harrisburg * . . . . . . . . .
Tyrone, Susquehanna River Basin . . . . . . . .
•Southern New York and eastern Pennsylvania,' Susquehanna River Basin _ _ _
Raystown Reservoir, Susquehanna River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . .
•Ohio River Basin _ _ — - -
The following projects have been added to the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin.
Latrobe, liyalhanna Creek (local maintenance and operation) . . . $112, 500
Turtle Creek Reservoir (plus $16,000 maintenance and operation, plus maintenance of channel be¬
low reservoir by local interests) _ 2, 613, 000
•Youghiogheny River Basin ($423,000 maintenance and operation)... . . . 37, 970, 000
Ridgeway, Johnsonburg, Saint Marys, and Brockway.
Rhode Island:
Woonsocket, channel improvement, Blackstone River Basin . . . .
Pawtucket, floodwall, Blackstone River Basin . . . . . . .
South Carolina:
Edisto River, channel improvement . . . .
•Clark Hill Reservoir, Savannah River . - . . .
South Dakota: ’Missouri River Basin ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Tennessee:
•Ohio River Basin. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
•Mississippi River, Cairo, HI., to Baton Rouge, La . . . . . . - .
Texas:
North Concho River, Colorado River Basin, Tex . . .
Pecan Bayou, Colorado River Basin, Tex... .
Whitney Reservoir, Brazos River Basin . . . . . . . . .
Ctah: Sevier River at Redmond, Utah . . . . . . . . . .
V'ermont:
•Connecticut River Basin ' _ _ _
•Winooski River Basin ' _
Virginia:
•Roanoke River Basin, Buggs Island and Philpott Reservoirs . . . . . . - .
•Ohio River Basin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Footnote at end of table.
First cost
$200, 000, 000
6, 013, 000
3, 000, 000
70, 000, 000
1,070,000
2, 232, 000
30,000,000
7,200,000
902, 940
200, 000, 000
3, 752, 000
1,952,000
10, 000, 000
45, 000, 000
141,000
200, 000, 000
1,610, 300
8, 44.5, 000
200, 000, 000
21,100
313,100
200, 000, 000
30, 000, 000
70, 000, 000
4, 7.5.5, 000
600,000
111,000
64,200
6, 360, 000
36. 140, 000
10, 840, 000
810, 000
333, 800
358, 610
200, 000, 000
26, 100
6,600
70, 000, 000
35, 000, 000
133, 000
264, 000
260, 100
421,000
485, 000
192, 000
349, 000
957, 000
23,000
20, 000, 000
118,000
143, 000
2, 227, 000
1, 392, 000
4, 755, 000
2, 000, 000
70, 000, 000
803,000
82,000
139,000
3.5, 300, 000
200, 000, 000
70, 000, 000
200, 000, 000
4,800,000
1,560,000
15,000,000
281,000
30,000,000
2, 120, 000
36, 140, 000
70, 000, 000
Cost of maintenance and operation
Local.
Do.
$8,270.
Local.
$2,000 plus channel maintenance by
local interests.
Local.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
$26, 800.
$164,100.
.$62,200.
$6,000.
$5,000.
$2,050.
Local.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
$90,000.
Local.
Do.
Do.
$223,000.
$25,000. In addition, local interests
maintain local iirotection works.
$2,000. In addition, local interests
maintain enlai'ged Lake Brownwood
Reservoir.
$70,000.
Local.
Do.
$164,000.
8348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Novembee 21
Projects in H. B. 4485 as reported out 'by the Committee on Commerce on June S2, 1944 — Continued
First cost
Cost of maintenance and operation
Washington:
Pullman, Pnlnnss Rivpr Basin . _ _ . _ . . ......
$187, 000
291,000
Colfax, Palouse River Basin _ _ _ _ _ _ ................. _ .......
Do.
■Ravmonii. Willana Kiver Basin _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
12?; 000
069, OOO
Do.
Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis, Chehalis River . . . . . . . . . .
Do. .
West Virginia: *Ohio River Basin . . . . . .
70, 000, 000
10, 000, 000
The following project has been added to the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin: Rowles-
burg Reservoir, Cheat River ($171,600 maintenance and operation) . . . $29, 230, 000
Wisconsin; ’Upper Mississippi River Basin > _ _ _ _
> Increased authorization for existing project.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, with
that preliminary statement I ask unani¬
mous consent that the formal reading
of the bill be dispensed with, that it be
considered for amendment, and that the
committee amendments be first consid¬
ered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The first amendment of the Committee
on Commerce will be stated.
The first amendment of the Committee
on Commerce was, on page 1, line 3, after
the word “assembled”, to insert:
It is the purpose of this act to establish a
definite policy of making use of existing
Federal agencies for the construction, opera¬
tion, and maintenance of all public improve¬
ments in connection with navigation, flood
control, and allied activities; to insure co¬
ordinated operation af all Federal projects
therein for the improvement of navigation
and alleviation of flood conditions; to provide
for realization of other benefits to be de¬
rived from such projects; to facilitate prep¬
arations and planning for post-war con¬
struction by the Federal Government in the
Interest of employment; and to secure eiflclent
executive management under the direction
and supervision of the permanent executive
agencies already established by act of Con¬
gress.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Barkley] has requested that the first
committee amendment be passed over
temporarily, and that course will be
satisfactory.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amend¬
ment will be passed over temporarily.
The next amendment reported by the
Committee on Commerce will be stated.
The next amendment was, on page 2,
line 6, before the word “That”, to insert
“Sec. 2.” ,
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 2,
line 20, to change the section number
from 2 to 3.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 3,
line 10, to change the section number
from 3 to 4; in line 12, after the word
“operate”, to insert “public”; in line 16,
after the word “lands”, to strike out
“structures” and insert “including struc¬
ture”; in the same line, after the word
“facilities”, to insert “thereon”; and in
line 18, after the word “provided” to
strike out :
That licenses to Federal, State, or local
governmental agencies for the use of areas
suitable for public park and recreational
purposes may be granted without monetary
consideration when the Secretary of War de¬
termines such action to be in the public In¬
terest,
And insert:
That preference shall be given to FeiJeral,
State, or local governmental agencies, and
licenses may be granted without monetary
consideration, to such agencies for the use
of areas suitable for public park and recrea¬
tional purposes, when the Secretary of War
determines such action to be in the public
interest. The water areas of all such reser¬
voirs shall be open to public use generally
without charge for boating, swimming, bath¬
ing, fishing, and other recreational purposes,
and ready access to and exit from such water
areas along the shores of such reservoirs
shall be maintained for general public use,
when such use is determined by the Secre¬
tary of War not to be contrary to the public
interest, all under such rules and regula¬
tions as the Secretary of War may deem nec¬
essary.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 4,
after line 13, to insert:
Sec. 5. Electric power and Energy generated
at reservoir projects under the control of
the War Department and in the opinion of
the Secretary of War not required in the op¬
eration of such projects shall be delivered to
the Secretary of the Interior, who shall trans¬
mit and dispose of such power and energy
in such manner as to encourage the most
widespread use thereof at the lowest possible
rates to consumers consistent with sound
business principles, the rate schedules to be¬
come effective upon confirmation and ap¬
proval by the Federal Power Commission.
Preference in the sale of such power and en¬
ergy shall be given to public bodies and co¬
operatives. The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to construct and acquire only
such transmission lines and related facilities
as may be necessary in order to inake the
power and energy generated at said projects
available in wholesale quantities for sale on
lair and reasonable terms and conditions to
facilities owned by the Federal Government,
public bodies, cooperatives, and privately
owned companies.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr, President, in
connection with the amendment just
stated the Commerce Committee yester¬
day authorized the chairman of the com¬
mittee, the Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. Bailey], to offer an amendment,
which, as I understand, would be a sub¬
stitute for the committee amendment.
I do not see the Senator from North
Carolina in the Chamber at the moment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Section 5 will be passed over tem¬
porarily.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
por^ The next committee amendment
will be stated.
The next amendment was, on page 5,
line 8, to change the section number from
4 to 6, and In line 13, after the name
“War Department” to insert a colon and
“Provided, That no sale of such water
shall adversely affect then existing law¬
ful uses of such water.”
Mr. MILUKIN. Mr. President, there
will be some amendments offered to take
the place of this section. I wonder if it
would not be well to let the whole sec¬
tion go over temporarily.
Mr. OVERTON. Including the Senate
committee amendment?
' Mr. MILLIKIN. Yes.
Mr. OVERTON. I may say that all
we are now doing is to pass on the Sen¬
ate committee amendments. Is there
any objection to the Senate committee
amendment? Is the Senator later going
to move to strike out this section?
Mr. MILLIKIN. It will later be moved
to strike out the whole section. I sug¬
gest that it be passed over for the time
being.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well. There is
no objection to passing over section 6
temporarily.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I take it
this provision is something new in our
legislation. I may be greatly in error,
but I have not known of any previous
legislation which authorized the Secre¬
tary of War or anyone else to sell stored
waters. Am I correct that this is some¬
thing new in our legislation, or is there
a precedent for it?
Mr. OVERTON. The Secretary of
War does not engage in the business of
selling stored water.
Mr. WHITE. It is provided in the
bill that he Is authorized to sell surplus
water that may be available in any
reservoir.
Mr. OVERTON. I beg pardon. I see
that amendment. What I was going to
say is that all surplus waters stored in
reservoirs are turned over to the Depart¬
ment of the Interior for distribution for
irrigation purposes. It so happens that
in connection with the sale for domestic
and industrial uses of surplus water
available in any reservoir under the con¬
trol of the War Department, the commit¬
tee has recommended an amendment
which protects the existing lawful uses
of the water. For instance, when a dam
is constructed and water is impounded in
it and there is nearby a lawful user. of
that water, we do not want to deprive
him of his rights. Therefore, he is per¬
mitted to take water from the dam, but,
of course, he does it under the direction of
the Secretary of War.
Mr. WHITE. Under this provision as
It now stands in the bill, I take it that
the Secretary of War may first determine
whether there is surplus water, what the
amount of the surplus water may be, and
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8349
then he is authorized to sell all he deter¬
mines to be surplus, I correct about
that?
Mr. OVERTON. That is substantially
COl'TGCt
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I
should like to say to the distinguished
senior Senator from Maine that there
will be an amendment proposed which
will take away the power to sell water
but leave the power to contract water.
It is the contention of the western Sen¬
ators that the Secretary of War has no
power to sell water, because he does not
own the water.
Mr. WHITE. That was the impression
that occurred to me. I did not see, un¬
less the Secretary of War has title to the
surplus water, how he was going to have
authority to sell and to pass title to some¬
one else or the use of it to someone else.
Mr. OVERTON. The difference be¬
tween the Senator from Colorado and
the committee is a mere technical differ¬
ence of words. The Senator from Colo¬
rado and those agreeing with him prefer
using the word “contract” to tlie word
“sale” — contract for the water, instead
of sell the water. There will be no ob¬
jection to that.
Mr. WHITE. That is a distinction
without a difference, is it not?
Mr. OVERTON. I think so. How¬
ever, the whole section 6 has been passed
over temporarily and that amendment
with it, at the request of the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I had
stepped out of the Senate Chamber for
a moment, and did not know that this
matter was coming up.
Mr. OVERTON. Section 5 was passed
over temporarily until the Senator could
come into the Chamber. I ask consent
that the Senate return to the power
amendment, which is section 5, which
was passed over temporarily because of
the absence of the Senator from North
Carolina.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the Senate will
return to the consideration of section 5,
and the amendment will be again stated.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 4,
after line 13, it is proposed to insert the
following:
Sec. 6. Electric power and energy gen¬
erated at reservoir projects under the con¬
trol of the War Department and In the
opinion of the Secretary of War not required
in the operation of such projects shall be de¬
livered to the Secretary of the Interior, who
shall transmit and dispose of such power
and energy in such mannw as to encourage
the most widespread use thereof at the lowest
possible rates to consumers consistent with
sound business principles, the rate schedules
to become effective upon confirmation and
approval by the Federal Power Commission.
Preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives. The Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to construct and acquire only
such transmission lines and related facilities
as may be necessary in order to make the
power and energy generated at said projects
available in wholesale quantities for sale on
fair and reasonable terms and conditions to
facilities owned by the Federal Government,
public bodies, cooperatives, and privately
owned companies.
No. 160 - ^3
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I sent
forward in the morning hour an amend¬
ment to this section and I intended to
have it printed for the information of
Senators, but, if the Senate is ready to
go ahead with it, I am, and I will ask that
the proposed amendment be read at the
desk.
Mr. OVERTON. I presume if it proves
to be controversial we can pass it over
for the time being.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Tlie amendment offered by the
Senator frorfl North Carolina to the com¬
mittee amendment will be read for the
information of the Senate.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 4, in
section 5, it is proposed to strike out all
after the word “cooperatives” in line 25,
and to insert in lieu thereof the fol¬
lowing :
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the p-mt of production, without special
privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
for the complete coordination of such power
and energy with other power developments,
both private and public, in the area con¬
tiguous with such projects. It shall be stip¬
ulated in connection with any sale that any
and all savings realized by the purchasers
shall be passed on under Federal regulation
where no State regulation exists, to the con¬
suming public: Provided, That unless 90 per¬
cent of the firm power produced at such proj¬
ects shall be demanded or purchased within
3 years after completion of construction of
such projects, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to construct transmission lines
for the purpose of selling such power at
wholesale.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, this
amendment has the status of a committee
amendment. It was submitted to the
Commerce Committee yesterday morn¬
ing. It was there thoroughly discussed
and altered and the committee voted 9 or
10 to 3 to strike out the amendment as
printed in the bill now before the Senate
and to insert the amendment I have pro¬
posed in lieu thereof.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The committee has a right to mod¬
ify its amendment.
Mr. BAILEY. So I take it, it would
be in order for the amendment to be
considered now as a committee amend¬
ment, if Senators are sufficiently in¬
formed about it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question will be on the com¬
mittee amendment as modified.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BAILEY. I think the Senator
from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. OVERTON. I am glad to yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I do not think such a far-
reaching amendment as that should be
considered without the Members of the
Senate having a chance to read it. The
amendment deals with the entire power
policy of the United States. Although
it Is worded well and sounds good the ef¬
fect of it would be to turn over the public
power of the United States, all power
generated at public dams, to private util¬
ity companies, and if they did not want it
at the end of 3 years, then the proper au¬
thority would have a chance to sell it to
the public; but if they wanted it they
would get it. I cannot imagine the Sen¬
ate acting on such an amendment as
that without having a chance to read It
and study it and let the people of the
country know what is going on.
Mr. BAILEY. Let me say to the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Vermont that I
have no intention of perpetrating a crime
in the Senate, and I hope I will not be
considered as capable of perpetrating a
very serious crime anywhere else.
Amongst other things, I do not intend,
as long as I live, to perpetrate the crime
of reflecting on my fellow Senators in a
debate.
I said that if the Senate was ready to
proceed, I was ready, but if the Senate
desires to have the amendment printed
and placed on the desks of Senators, that
is entirely agreeable to me. I wish to
say, however, that I could not agree to
the statement which the Senator from
Vermont has made, which is about as just
with respect to the amendment itself as
it was with respect to those of us who are
now accused of being about to perpe¬
trate a crime in the Senate.
Mr. AIKEN. I grant the entire sin¬
cerity of the Senator from North Caro¬
lina in his viewpoint on some of these
matters, which happens to differ from
mine, but I do think Senators should
have time to read the amendment and
study it, and I am sure the Senator from
North Carolina agrees with me in that.
Furthermore, it appears that if the
amendment should be agreed to, it would
have an effect on practically all the
amendments, as well as all the projects,
or most of the projects, authorized by
the bill, and it seems to me that this
should be one of the earliest matters in
the bill to be disposed of, if not the ear¬
liest, because it might, and probably
would, influence the votes of Senators
on the other projects authorized by the
bill.
Mr. BAILEY. I agree with the sug¬
gestion made that the matter go over
until tomorrow, or, if the bill should stay
here longer, it might go over for a longer
period, but I would much rather dispose
of it tomorrow, because I am really under
some obligations to return to the avia¬
tion conference In Chicago, and I should
like to get away. I shall consent that
the matter be deferred until tomorrow,
if the Senate is to be in session tomorrow.
Meantime, I do not wish my amendment
to be prejudiced by remarks from any
quarter. It is an effort, a sincere effort,
to state a proper live-and-let-live power
policy, in view of the creation of enor¬
mous power by the bill. That is all the
amendment is. But I shall defer any
discussion until the amendment comes
up in regular order, and I take it no one
is seriously prejudiced in his mind by
what has been said here. I think men
do sometimes commit crimes with the
utmost sincerity.
Mr. AIKEN. I might say it would be a
crime on the part of the Senate, not
necessarily on the part of the Senator
from North Carolina, to consider the
amendment without opportunity for
study on the part of Senators.
>
8350
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
Mr. BAILEY. I think the assassina¬
tion of Caesar was sometimes charged
to the entire Senate of Rome, but that
did not affect the assassination at all,
and it did not help the Senate. I do
not think the Senate of the United States
is remotely contemplating committing a
crime now or hereafter, even in the name
of liberty.
I merely send the amendment forward,
and will let it go over until tomorrow.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the modified
amendment of the committee will be
printed for the information of Senators,
and will lie on the table, and the pend¬
ing amendment will go over.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I sug¬
gest that this is simpiy a modification of
the committee amendment, and that the
entire amendment, beginning with the
words “Sec. 5”, be printed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, wili the
Senator from Louisiana yield to me for a
question?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. DOWNEY. While this amendment
is before the Senate, let me inquire
whether its effect would be only on con¬
struction by Army engineers, and would
not be upon construction by the Rec¬
lamation Bureau.
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct. It
says “Electric power and energy gener¬
ated at reservoir projects under the con¬
trol of the War Department.”
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Louisiana yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. BURTON. A moment ago the Sen¬
ate approved the committee amendment
to section 4, with which I concur, but I
wish to ask the chairman of the subcom¬
mittee a question or two in order to help
clarify the situation, in the interest of
some who are much interested in the use
of the War Department reservoirs for
recreationai i)urposes.
As I understand the effect of the
amendment, it provides that the water
areas of the War Department reservoirs
shall be available to the public without
charge. That would mean the use of the
water and the use of access to the water,
and that would be without charge. Is
not that correct?
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct, for
certain recreational purposes.
Mr. BURTON. But the activities on
that water would still be subject to the
fishing licenses and motorboat licenses
of the areas concerned?
Mr. OVERTON. That is my under¬
standing.
Mr. BURTON. And the surrounding
park grounds or picnic facilities would
not be covered so that they w'ould have to
be made available without charge, espe¬
cially where it might be necessary to have
some maintenance charges in order ade¬
quately to take care of those areas.
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct. All
that is desired is that there may be ac¬
cess for recreational purposes by the
public.
Mr. BURTON. The water may be used
without charge for boating, bathing.
swimming, fishing, and other recreation- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
al purposes, together with ready access pore. The clerk will state the amend-
to and exit from such water areas? ment. _
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct.
Mr. BURTON. And this is all limited
to reservoirs under the jurisdiction of
the War Department?
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Louisiana yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Will the Senator tell
us what happened to the committee
amendment on page 1?
Mr. OVERTON. That was passed over
temporarily.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The clerk will state the next
amendment of the committee.
The next amendment was, on page 5,
line 17, to change the section number
from 5 to 7; and in line 18, after the word
“storage”, to strike out “available” and
insert “allocated.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Did the Senator from Colorado ob¬
ject to the proviso on lines 13 and 14,
page 5?
Mr. MILLIKIN. It was understood that
that would go over.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amendment
will be passed over, and the clerk will
state the next amendment of the com¬
mittee.
The next amendment was, on page 5,
in line 22, after the word “regulations”,
to insert a colon and the following pro¬
viso: “Provided, That this section shall
not apply to the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority except in case of danger from
floods.”
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I have a
copy of a letter under date of August 15,
addressed to the distinguished Senator
from Louisiana, signed by the chairman
of the Tennessee Valley Authority, in
which he suggests language in lieu of the
amendment proposed, the language sug¬
gested by the chairman of the Tennes¬
see Valley Authority being language
agreed on between the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Army engineers and
the War Department. I do not think the
language suggested by the engineers and
the Tennessee Valley Authority changes
the intent or the purpose at all of the
amendment reported by the committee,
except that I think it makes it clearer
and more specific, and is really better
language. I hope the Senator has no
objection to the language agreed on by
the engineers and the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Mr. OVERTON. I have no objection.
I think the meaning of both is the same.
Mr. HILL. The meaning is the same.
Then, as a substitute for the committee
amendment, I offer the following: “Pro¬
vided, That this section shall not apply
to the Tennessee Valley Authority, except
that in case of danger from floods on the
lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers the
Tennessee Valley Authority is directed to
regulate the release of water to the Ten¬
nessee River into the Ohio River in ac¬
cordance with such instructions as may
be issued by the War Department.”
The Legislative Clerk. In lieu of the
committee amendment on page 5, line 22,
it is proposed to insert the following:
“Provided, That this section shall not
apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority
except that in case of danger from floods
on the lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers
the Tennessee Valley Authority is di¬
rected to regulate the release of water to
the Tennessee River into the Ohio River
in accordance with such instructions as
may be issued by the War Department.”
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question is on agreeing to
the amendment offered by the Senator
from Alabama in the nature of a substi¬
tute for the amendment of the commit¬
tee.
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
. The amendment as amended was
agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The clerk will state the next
amendment of the committee.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 5, af¬
ter line 24, it is proposed to strike out:
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever in the opinion
of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers any dam and reservoir project oper¬
ated under the direction of the Secretary of
War can be consistently used for reclama¬
tion of arid lands, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe
regulations under existing reclamation law
for the use of the storage available for such
purpose, and the operation of any such proj¬
ect shall be in accordance with such regula¬
tions. Such rates, as the Secretary of the
Interior may deem reasonable, shall be
charged for the use of said storage; the mon¬
eys received to be deposited into the Treasury
to the credit of miscellaneous receipts:
And to insert:
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation
by the Secretary of the Interior that any
dam and reservoir proj'ect operated under
the direction of the Secretary of War may
be utilized for irrigation purposes, the Sec¬
retary of the Interior is authorized to con¬
struct, operate, and maintain, under the
provisions of the Federal reclamation laws
(act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts
amendatory thereof or supplementary there¬
to), such additional works in connection
therewith as he may deem necessary for
Irrigation purposes. Such irrigation works
may be undertaken only after a report and
findings thereon have been made by the
Secretary of the Interior as provided in said
Federal reclamation laws and after subse¬
quent specific authorization of the Congress
by an authorization act; and within the
limits of the water users’ repayment ability
such report may be predicated on the alloca¬
tion to irrigation of an appropriate portion
of the cost of structures and facilities used
for irrigation and other purposes. Dams and
reservoirs operated under the direction of
the Secretary of War may be utilized here¬
after for UTlgatlon purposes only in con¬
formity with the provisions of this section,
but the foregoing requirement shall not
prejudice lawful uses now existing.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, that
Is a controversial section, and I suggest
that it go over.
Mr. OVERTON, I did not know it was
controversial.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
Ml’. MILLIKIN. We have proposed a
section 8 which is different from the sec¬
tion 8 now appearing in the bill.
Mr. OVERTON. Then, I ask that the
amendment be passed over temporarily.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amend¬
ment will be passed over.
The next committee amendment will
be stated.
The next amendment was, on page 8, j
after line 12, to insert:
LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN
Modifications of the existing Waterbury,
Wrightsviile, and East Barre Dams in the
Winooski River Basin, Vt., are hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 629, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $2,120,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 8,
after line 19, to insert:
BLACKSTONE EIVER BASIN
The project for the West Hill Reservoir on
the West River, Mass., for flood control and
other purposes in the Blackstone River Basin
is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 624,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $1,070,000.
The amendment was agreed to.-
The next amendment was, on page 9,
after line 2, to insert:
The project on Blackstone River for local
flood protection at Worcester, Mass., is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 624, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $2,232,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 9,
after line 8, to insert:
The project on Blackstone River for local
flood protection at Woonsocket, R. I., is
hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 624,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $803,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 9,
after line 14, to insert:
The project on Seekonk River for local
flood protection at Pawtucket, R. I., is hereby
authorized substantially In accordance with
tRe recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 624, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an. esti¬
mated cost of $82,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, at the
appropriate time I intend to offer, on
page 9, following line 21, “Connecticut
River Basin”, an amendment which
would read:
Section 3 of the act approved August 18,
1941 (55 Stat. 638), paragraph entitled “Con¬
necticut River Basin,’’ is amended by strik¬
ing out the words “with such further mod¬
ifications as may be found justifiable in the
discretion of the Secretary of War and the
Chief of Engineers.’’
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. That amendment will be taken
up when the consideration of individual
amendments is reached, as the Chair
understands.
Mr. AUSTIN. I thank the Chair. I
should like to have notice taken of the
fact that I offer the amendment and ask
that it be printed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amend¬
ment will be printed and will lie on the
table.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, if I
may ask a question of the Senator from
Vermont, Is the effect of his amendment
to abrogate the authorization affecting
the Connecticut River Basin or would
the authorization remain with authority
for ‘Such modifications in the future as
may be proposed?
Mr. AUSTIN. The amendment would
abrogate simply a special part of the au¬
thorization made in 1941 which is rather
novel. I believe that there is no other
similar authorization in any bill which
has ever been passed by Congress. It
is a sort of sleeper, a thing which escaped
our notice heretofore. Under the pro¬
vision it is clearly possible that tomor¬
row, after Congress shall have enacted
a bill, it would be entirely in the dis¬
cretion of the Secretary of War and the
Chief of Engineers to undo what Con¬
gress has agreed to as a policy.. This au¬
thorization is exceedingly sweeping, as
I interpret it, and as people in the neigh¬
borhood of the West River Valley in¬
terpret it. The Army engineers, under
the Secretary of War, could go down the
river and flood Brattleboro, because that
would be such a further modification of
the plan as is specified in the bill re¬
ferred to. This is only a part of the is¬
sue with which the distinguished Sena¬
tor from Louisiana is familiar.
Mr. OVERTON. Then the amend¬
ment refers only to the modification au¬
thority at present vested in the Chief
of Engineers?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; it relates to a
past authority, and I suspect that the
distinguished Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O’Mahoney] will have a more com¬
prehensive amendment to offer which
will reach back to the Connecticut River
Basin. So I hope the distinguished Sen¬
ator from Louisiana will allow this sub¬
ject of the Connecticut River Basin to
be passed over for the present time.
Mr. OVERTON. I shall be very happy
to let it be passed over. I was hopeful,
however, that the Connecticut River
Basin project could be taken up by itself,
and not be related in any way to the
Missouri River Basin because it does not
bear any relation geographically to it,
and I would be very happy to consider it
by itself as a separate amendment.
However, of course, that is entirely
within the discretion of the Senate and
the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes ; I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. I thank the Senator.
I should like to know if the language
which he proposes on page 9 would strike
out the present language beginning on
line 21 “Connecticut River Basin”?
Mr. AUSTIN. No; it would follow
those three words “Connecticut River
Basin,” and it would constitute the first
paragraph under that heading.
8351
Mr. MALONEY. Would it have any
bearing upon the language now in the
bill?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.
Mr. MALONEY. Will the Senator tell
me what bearing it would have?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. Mr. President,
the language now in the bill refers ex¬
pressly to “the comprehensive plan ap¬
proved in the act of June 28, 1938, as
modifled by the act approved August 18,
1941, for the Connecticut River Basin.”
The language comprehends the au¬
thority which is expressed in the amend¬
ment which I offer. That is, besides ex¬
pressly authorizing the appropriation of
a sum of money for the construction of
specific projects named in the plans there
specified, there is this rider hitched on
which is peculiar evidently to the Con¬
necticut River Basin. Why it was put
there I do not know. But it is extremely
effective because it would enable the
Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers to do anything in the Connecti¬
cut River Basin if they in their discre¬
tion found it justifiable.
The first thing it seems to me for Con¬
gress to do is to take away from the
Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers that extraordinary dominion
over the plan. All other plans must be
submitted to us before an authorization
is made. No authorization must be made
until Congress approves the plan. But
on the Connecticut River, with that
sleeper in the bill, we can approve a plan
one day, and the Secretary of War and
the Chief of Engineers can alter it or
amend it under this authority “with such
further modifications as may be found
justifiable in the discretion of the Secre¬
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers.”
I want that language stricken from the
act.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to ask
the Senator a further question, if I may.
Does he maintain that under the exist¬
ing language in the law the Army engi¬
neers, if they so desired, could build a
dam at Springfield, Mass.?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes, of course. They
could build one anywhere in the Con¬
necticut River Basin. This was called
to the attention of the public and to the
Government back in June 1944. That
was the first notice I had of this extra¬
ordinary element that was in the
authorization of 1941, and this is the
first opportunity we have had to attempt
to delete it.
Mr. MALONEY. Is the Senator espe¬
cially concerned, if I may ask him this
question, with the dam on the West
River w'hich is already planned? Is
that his particular concern now?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; we are especially
concerned about that dam.
Mr. MALONEY. And would the lan¬
guage of the Senator’s proposed amend¬
ment, if it were adopted, deny the Army
engineers the right to proceed with
those plans?
Mr. AUSTIN. No; it would not have
that effect, except in this way, that we
might today delete from the bill au¬
thority to build the Williamsville Dam
on the West River, and tomorrow the
Army engineers might go right to work
on it and build it under a modification
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 21
8352
authorized by the act of 1941, which
reads :
With such further modifications as may
be found justifiable in the discretion of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. MALONEY. And does the Sen¬
ator insist that if we sometime later
appropriated the $30,000,000 which is
authorized in the pending bill, the Army
engineers could spend it in any way they
desired on the Connecticut River?
Mr, AUSTIN. That is my interpreta¬
tion of that sleeper clause. We have
given them carte blanche on the Con¬
necticut River Basin by that clause.
Mr. MALONEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. LANGER. It is true, is it not,
that the engineers do not have to give
notice to anybody?
Mr. AUSTIN. That is true, as the law
stands.
Mr. LANGER. The Governor is not
notified, and they simply go ahead and
do the work.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is true. There
are no hearings.
Mr. MALONEY. That is true with
respect to any river and harbor project
W'hich the Congress authorizes.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I expect to
join my colleague in the effort to strike
out the dam at the Williamsville site.
I also wish to say that I am opposed to
the committee amendment on page 10,
beginning in line 5, which reads as fol¬
lows:
Provided further, Tliat none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shall be utilized for the generation of
hydroelectric power.
In passing over the subject of the Con¬
necticut River Basin, is the proposed
amendment also passed over at this time?
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct. It
includes eversdhing under the Connecti¬
cut River Basin.
Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the section un¬
der the heading “Connecticut River
Basin,” including the committee amend¬
ment on page 10, line 5, will be passed
over.
The Clerk will state the next commit¬
tee amendment.
The next amendment was, on page 12,
after line 2, to insert:
ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
The general plan for the comprehensive
development of the Roanoke River Basin for
flood control and other purposes recom¬
mended by the Chief of Engineers In House
Document No. 650. Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session. Is approved and the construc¬
tion of the Buggs Island Reservoir on the
Roanoke River In Virginia and North Caro¬
lina. and the Phllpott Reservoir on the Smith
River in Virginia, are hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in that
report at an estimated cost of $36,140,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 12,
after line 13, to insert:
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
The general plan for the comprehensive de¬
velopment of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
for flood control and other purposes recom¬
mended by the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 652, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, is approved and the construc¬
tion of the Wilkesboro Reservoir on the Yad¬
kin-Pee Dee River in North Carolina is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in that report at an estimated cost of
$10,840,000.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
committee has modified its amendment
in reference to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin. The Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. Bailey] will present the modifica¬
tion.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, the
amendment which I offered, and which
the committee imanimously approved,
reads as follows:
On page 12, after line 14, strike out
lines 15 to 23, inclusive, under the title
“Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin” and in¬
sert in lieu thereof the following:
The general plan for the comprehensive
development of the Yadkln-Pee Dee River
Basin for flood control, and other purposes,
recommended by the Chief of Engineers in
House Document 652, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session. Is hereby stricken from
the bill and Is referred to the Committee on
Commerce to the end that hearings may be
had from the people concerned and with in¬
structions to report back to the Senate within
6 months.
It may seem a little odd that a Senator
should ask to have stricken from the bill
an item involving the approval of a $10,-
000,000 project, and ultimately, I think,
over $100,000,000, but there is a good rea¬
son for it.
I am satisfied that we need flood con¬
trol on the Yadkin River in the vicinity
of Wilkes County. The engineers pro¬
pose not only to build a dam there, but to
build a long series of dams through the
State, where absolutely no flood control is
involved. That is the first objection.
The second objection is that the dam
proposed at V/ilkesboro would flood per¬
manently more land, more homes, and
more territory than have even been
flooded below the dam. That is a singu¬
lar statement to make, but it is a true
statement. The dam at North Wilkes¬
boro would flood 13,000 acres of land,
extending all the way through Wilkes
County up to the foothills of the Blue
Ridge at the place called Happy Valley,
a place with which I am familiar.
We all know Mr. Doughton. I believe
he is now the dean of the House. He has
been in the House for 36 years. The
county of Caldwell, where the Happy
Valley region lies, and where this land
would be flooded, is in his county of Cald¬
well. A portion of it is in Wilkes County.
Mr. Doughton appeared before the com¬
mittee yesterday and stated that in his
long career in the House of Representa¬
tives he had never known the people of
his section to be so stirred up, so indig¬
nant, and so fearful of the disaster of
permanent flooding of their lands and
the driving of the people from their
homes and farms.
I can corroborate that statement.
Ever since this Item was placed in the
bill — and I was not here when it was
placed in the bill — I have received almost
endless protests. To give an example, the
bishop of the Episcopal Church for west¬
ern North Carolina^ wrote me a letter in
August, and stated that he thought that
the Patterson School, which is a very fine
school in Happy Valley, would be de¬
stroyed, and he begged me to take some
steps which would prevent that disaster.
The Happy Valley and the Valley of
the Yadkin above North Wilkesboro, and
above the site of the proposed dam, have
been occupied and cultivated by the peo¬
ple of that section ever since the days
of the Revolution. It is not an aban¬
doned wilderness. It is a valley of fine
homesteads and farms, and abundant
timber. The people living there do not
understand why they should be flooded
out forever, and they do not think that
the offer of the compensation means
anything. Neither do I. No one could
pay me enough money to induce me to
give up my home for the purpose of build¬
ing a dam. I love my home and I am at¬
tached to it. Those people make their
living on those farms. They have never
known anything else.
I am in favor of a flood-control proj¬
ect in the neighborhood of North Wilkes¬
boro. I believe that the floods of the
Yadkin Valley should be ended. I just
voted for a flood-control project on the
Roanoke River. That is the section of
the bill immediately preceding the one
under discussion. But I am not in favor
of erecting a power dam where no power
is really needed, and where the price to
be paid is not $10,000,000, but the wel¬
fare and happiness of the population
extending from Wilkesboro all the way
to Happy Valley in Caldwell County. I
am not in favor of that. I do not care
who knows it. I will shout it from the
house-tops in North Carolina, and my
statement will be approved by the peo¬
ple of North Carolina. I am not in favor
of destroying the homes of the people.
I am thoroughly responsive to the peti¬
tions which have been filed with me. I
am satisfied that the people of North
Wilkesboro, who would profit to some ex¬
tent by a dam, do not wish to destroy
the homes of their fellow citizens all the
way up the river to the foothills of the
mountains.
I ask that this amendment be adopted
in lieu of. the language in the bill. If
it is adopted, I shall request the engi¬
neers to prepare for me a survey with a
view to arresting the floods in the Yad¬
kin Valley, and at the same time with a
view to preserving the homes of the
people in that valley.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, after
the representations made by the senior
Senator from North Carolina before the
full committee in reference to the Yad¬
kin-Pee Dee River Basin, I was in accord
with the views expressed by him, as were
all the other members of the committee.
However, I wish to say that the Corps of
Engineers is not at fault in making a
report as to what power could be de¬
veloped on the Yadkin and Pee Dee
Rivers. The Corps of Engineers was act¬
ing under a direction from the Congress
of the United States. The Congress of
the United States provided in the reso¬
lution adopted on April 1, 1937, and in
another one adopted on November 1,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944
1938, as follows — I will not read all of
them:
That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors —
And so forth and so on —
is hereby requested to review the report on
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River of North Carolina
and South Carolina, published in House Doc¬
ument No. 68. Seventy-third Congress, first
session, with a view to determining the ad¬
visability of modifying the existing projects
for navigation on the Pee Dee River to pro¬
vide for improved navigation to Cheraw, S. C.,
and for the development of hydroelectric
power in that vicinity.
Then, in connection with the review
of the reports on preliminary examina¬
tion and survey for flood-control de¬
velopment and development of hydro¬
electric power on Rocky River — Love’s
Ford and Crump’s Ford — N. C., and at
Wilkesboro Dam, Yadkin River, N. C., we
And that these reviev/s were authorized
by section 7 of the Flood Control Act of
June 22, 1936.
Therefore, the Corps of Engineers
simply made a report, as directed by
Congress. It contained these power
projects as well as the flood-control and
navigation projects.
I wish to make the further observation
that I regret very much that the senior
Senator from North Carolina was not
present when the project came up for
hearing before the subcommittee. Un¬
fortunately, he was absent because he
was not well at the time, and could not
be present. But no objection was made
by anyone. The testimony in respect to
the project was without contradiction
that it was feasible, from an engineering
standpoint, and economically justified.
With that testimony before it, the full
committee authorized it. As soon as the
senior Senator from North Carolina
stated his objections to it, and inasmuch
as the project is one wholly within his
State, the committee had no objection
whatsoever to the amendment he pro¬
posed. Therefore, I am perfectly willing
that the amendment as modified be
adopted.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, as a
minority member of the subcommittee, I
wish to join in the same request. When
the matter originally came up for con¬
sideration, we merely had before us a
report of the engineers. No opposition
was presented at the hearings by any
Member of the Senate or by others, due
particularly to the illness of the senior
Senator from North Carolina. But on
the further consideration by the full
committee, both the senior Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Bailey] and Repre¬
sentative Doughton of North Carolina,
from the district immediately involved,
asked for the adoption of the amendment
now proposed, which amounts to a with¬
drawal of the committee proposal and
provision for a further survey in that
area. The committee was unanimous in
approving the adoption of the modified
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question is on agreeing to the
modified amendment. m
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I wish to
say that I am not in the slightest degree
disposed to disagree with the Army
engineers. I 4m not bringing accusa¬
tions against anyone. I am merely point¬
ing out what would be the consequences
of construction of the dam.
So far as the matter of being heard is
concerned, I believe I am perfectly safe
in saying that the report of the engi¬
neers was not printed or available, and
the people knew nothing about it. I
know I am safe in saying that when the
people found out what was to happen to
their homes they were in utter conster¬
nation and dismay, and people from all
locations and from every class appealed
to me and to Mr. Doughton in the same
way.
So there is nothing for me to do except
to endeavor to have another survey
made. When we get one, I hope we shall
have a dam which will prevent floods in
the Yadkin Valley. If it is confined to
that, the needs of the situation will be
satisfied.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BAILEY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Can the Senator tell us
how many homes are involved in this
project?
Mr. BAILEY. No; I am sorry that I
cannot do so. I think perhaps Mr.
Doughton can. I do not think any cen¬
sus has been taken. The Happy Valley
is at the end of the basin in which the
water will be backed up. I am perfectly
familiar with the Happy Valley. I have
passed through it many times. Many
other Members of Congress have done so;
some other Senators may have passed
through it. In the northwestern part of
North Carolina is a summer resort known
as Blowing Rock. It is a very popular
summer resort. In reaching it one passes
through the Happy Valley. Our com¬
missioner of agriculture, the late Samuel
Patterson, owned a large portion of the
valley, and had a very fine home there.
Everyone who goes there says, “This is
the Happy Valley.” It is a beautiful
valley of fine land. Going downstream
from that point — I shall make an ap¬
proximation, and I think I am safe in
doing so — for 20 miles one finds culti¬
vated land, farm homes, and, of course,
woodland. We have woodland all over
North Carolina. But I have no way of
estimating the number of people who
would be seriously affected. I am simply
saying that I think about as many people
will be found in the valley of the Yadkin
River and in that section of North Caro¬
lina as will be found in any other section
of the State. The valley is not a moun¬
tain ravine: it is not a desert section. I
think the fact that the valley has been
known for about 75 years as the Happy
Valley is an indication of its character.
Mr. AIKEN. Is it the expectation of
the Senator that a further investigation
will result in a plan by which there will
be developed appreciable protection from
floods, but without great destruction?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes; that is the thought
of the people there; namely, to have a
dam, but not to back up the water into
the Happy Valley. Of course, that is the
question, and I am glad the Senator
asked it.
Today in America we are not merely
controlling floods. In many cases only
8353
a 50-foot or a 75-foot dam would be re¬
quired for flood control. But a 150-foot
dam is built for power. There is no right
to do so. That is what is going on in
America, and I think it has gone far
enough. I think we should have more
respect for the Constitution and should
not spend our time damming our way
around it.
But that is aside from the point here
involved. All I wish to do is to protect
the good people in that locality and then
start afresh with a project for the con¬
struction of a dam which will prevent
floods. When we obtain a measure pro¬
viding for the construction of such a
dam, I shall ask the Senate to vote for
it, and probably I shall endeavor to have
the measure brought up out of order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The amendment as modified by
the committee will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 12, line
14,' through line 23, it is proposed to strike
out all the paragraph under the title
“Yadkin-Peedee River Basin” and to in¬
sert in lieu thereof the following:
The general plan for the comprehensive
development of the Yadkin-Peedee River
Basin for flood control and other purposes
recommended by the Chief of Engineers in
House Document 652, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, is hereby stricken from
the bill and is referred to the Committee on
Commerce to the end that hearings may be
had from the people concerned and with
instructions to report back to the Senate
within 6 months.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the modified
amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment of the committee
will be stated.
The next amendment was, on page 12,
after line 23, to insert:
EDISTO RIVER BASIN
The project for local flood control on Edisto
River, S. C., is hereby authorized substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Doc¬
ument No. 182, Seventy-eighth Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $139,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 13,
after line 4, to insert:
SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN
The general plan for the comprehensive
development of the Savannah River Basin
for flood control and other purposes recom¬
mended by the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 657, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, is approved and the construc¬
tion of the Clark Hill Reservoir on the Savan¬
nah River in South Carolina and Georgia, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in that report at an estimated cost
of $35,300,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Red-Ouachita River Basin”, on
page 15, after line 7, to insert:
The project on Red River in the vicinity of
Shreveport, La., for flood control and bank
protection is hereby authorized, substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document
No. 627, Seventy-eighth Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $3,000,000, except
that, in view of the large expenditure already
made by local interests, they shall not be
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8354
required to contribute to the construction
cost.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 15,
after line 15, to insert:
The project for the Blakely Mountain Dam
on the Ouachita River, for flood control and
other purposes in the Ouachita River Basin,
Ark., is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
647, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $11,080,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Upper Mississippi River Basin,”
on page 17, line 8, after the word “Basin”,
to insert 'a comma and “including the
project for the Red Rock Dam on the Des
Moines River for flood control and other
purposes, substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 651,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $15,000,000.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 17,
after line 20, to insert:
The project on the Des Moines River for
local flood protection at Des Moines, Iowa,
is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 651,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $270,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 18,
line 13, after the words “cost of”, to
strike out “$418,000” and insert “$300,-
000.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Red River of the North Basin”,
on page 19, after line 7, to insert:
The project for the Bald Hill Reservoir on
the Sheyenrie River for flood control and
other purposes in the Sheyenne River Basin,
N. Dak., is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
No. 193, Seventy-eighth Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $810,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was on page 19,
after line 14, to insert:
The projects for the construction of one
reservoir on the Pembina River and one on
the Tongue River for flood control and other
purposes In the Pembina River Basin, N. Dak.,
are hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
665, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $333,800.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 19,
after line 21, to insert:
The project for the construction of a res¬
ervoir on the South Branch of Park River
for flood control and other purposes in the
Park River Basin, N. Dak., is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in Senate Document No. 194, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $368,610.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
subhead “Missouri River Basin”, on page
21, after line 2, to insert:
In the Interest of developing the natural
resources of the Missouri River Basin there
is hereby created a commission to be known
as the Missouri River Commission, which
shall be In the War Department and shall
function In accordance with existing law
under the direction of the Secretary of War
and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers
In planning, constructing, operating, and
miaintalnlng improvements for navigation
and flood control in the Missouri River Basin.
The Missouri River Commission shall consist
of the same number of members with the
same qualifications and methods of appoint¬
ment!, replacement, and removal as pre¬
scribed in the act approved June 28, 1879,
for the Mississippi River Commission and the
compensation for the members of the Mis¬
souri River Commission shall be the com¬
pensation presently provided for members of
the Mississippi River Commission. The pres¬
ident of the Missouri River Commission shall
have’ the same qualification and shall be
designated in the manner prescribed by ex¬
isting law for the president of the Mississippi
River Commission and he shall have the
same functions and perquisites including
title, pay, allowances, and rank while actually
serving as president of the Missouri River
Commission as well as the same subsequent
retirement privileges under the same condi¬
tions as prescribed by law for the president
of the Mississippi River Commission.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I
should like to invite the attention of the
distinguished senior Senator from Louis¬
iana to the fact that the amendment
which has just been read has aroused
considerable controversy, and I suggest
that it be passed over.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection the amend¬
ment will be passed over.
Mr. OVERTON. I assume that the
amendment which the Senator from
Colorado has in mind is the one with
reference to the Missouri River Com¬
mission?
Mr. MILLIKIN. That is correct.
Mr. OVERTON. I have no objection
to the amendment going over, Mr. Presi¬
dent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The amendment will be passed
over. The next amendment of the com¬
mittee will be stated.
The next amendment was, on page 23,
after line 21, to insert:
The plan of improvement for local flood
protection on the Charlton River, Mo., is
hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 628,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $1,610,300.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
subhead “Ohio River Basin,” on page 25,
after line 9, to insert:
The plan of improvement for flood control
and other purposes in the Kentucky River
Basin, substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
In House Document No. 504, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $23,822,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 25,
after line 14, to insert:
The local flood protection works at Middles-
borough on Yellow Creek, Ky., substantially
In accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers In House Document
No. 496, Seventy-eighth Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $205,200.
The amendment was agreed to.
November 21
The next amendment was, on page 25,
after line 19, to insert:
The local flood-protection works on the
Rough River and tributaries, Kentucky, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 535, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $360,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, at the top
of page 26, to insert:
The Turtle Creek Reservoir on Turtle Creek,
Pa., substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 607, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $2,613,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Great Lakes Basin,” on page
27, after line 21, to insert:
The project for the Mount Morris Reservoir
on the Genesee River, N. Y., is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 615, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $5,360,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 28,
after line 23, to insert:
GREAT salt basin
The project on the Sevier River for local
flood protection at Redmond, Utah, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document No. 614, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $281,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 29,
after line 4, to insert:.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
The project for the Alamo Reservoir on the
Bill Williams River, Ariz., is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document No. 625, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, .at an estimated
cost of $3,202,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 30,
after line 17, to insert:
PAJARO RIVER BASIN
The plan of Improvement for local flood
protection on the Pajaro River and tribu¬
taries, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially In accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers In
House Document No. 605, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $511,160.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Basin — Sacramento River,” on page 31,
after line 2, to strike but:
The projects for the control of floods and
other purposes on the Sacramento River,
Calif., adopted by the acts approved
March 1, 1917, May 15, 1928, August 26, 1937,
and August 18, 1941, are hereby modified sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Board of Engineers fbr
Rivers and Harbors dated February 7, 1944,
with such modifications thereof as In the
discretion of the Secretary of War and the
Chief pf Engineers may be advisable, at an
estimated cost of $46,056,000; and in a'ddition
to.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
And in lieu thereof to insert the follow¬
ing;
The projects for the control of floods and
other purposes on the Sacramento River,
Calif., adopted hy the acts approved March
1, 1917, May 15: 1928, August 26, 1937, and
August 18, 1941, are hereby modified sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document No. 649, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $50,100,000; and in addition to.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 32,
after line 4, to insert:
The project for the Folsom Reservoir on the
American River, Calif., is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the plans
contained in House Document No. 649, Seven¬
ty-eighth Congress, second session, with such
modifications thereof as in the discretion of
the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engi¬
neers may be advisable, at an estimated cost
of $18,474,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “San Joaquin River,” on page
34, after line 8, to insert:
The plan of Improvement for flood control
and other purposes on the Calaveras River
and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, Cali¬
fornia, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document No.
E45, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $3,868,200.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 34,
after line 14, to insert;
NAPA RIVER BASIN
The project for the Conn Creek Reservoir
on Conn Creek for flood control and other
purposes in the Napa River Basin, Calif., is
hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document No. 626,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $460,000. ^
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
36, after line 15, to insert;
CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN
The project on Chehalis River for local
flood protection at Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and
Cosmopolis, Wash., is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document No. 494, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of
$669,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
36, after line 22, to insert:
TERRITORY OF HAWAII
The project on the Hanapepe River for
local flood protection at Hanapepe, Island of
Kauai, Territory of Hawaii, is hereby author¬
ized substantialiy in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in the report submitted to Congre.ss by the
Secretary of War on March 15, 1944, at an
estimated cost of $73,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
37, line 5, to change the section number
from 8 to 10.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
38, after line 3, to insert:
Pasquotank River, North Carolina.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
38, line 9, after the word “Counties” to
strike out “Florida,” and insert “Florida.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
38, after line 11, to insert:
For flood control, rice irrigation, naviga¬
tion, pollution, salt-water intrusion, and
drainage on all streams and bayous in south¬
west Louisiana, west of the West Atchafalaya
Basin protection levee, and south of the lati¬
tude of Boyce; on all streams and bayous
in Louisiana lying between the East Atcha¬
falaya Basin protection levee and the Missis¬
sippi River; and on Amite River and tribu¬
taries, Louisiana.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
39, after line 13, to insert:
Arkansas River above Pine Bluff, Ark., with
special reference to control of caving banks
in the vicinity of Hensley Bar and the Mc-
Fadden Place, in Jefferson County, Ai'k.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page
39, after line 24, to insert:
Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, Calif.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 40,
after line 2, to insert:
Elkhorn River and its tributaries, Nebraska.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 40,
line 4, to change the section number from
9 to 11, and in the same line, after the
word “of”, to strike out “$810,000,000”
and insert “$959,465,000.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 40,
line 17, to change the section number
from 10 to 12, and on page 41, line
11, after the word “requirements”, to
insert a colon and the following addi¬
tional proviso f “Provided further, That
nothing in this section shall be construed
as approving or authorizing the acquisi¬
tion of any land by the Federal Govern¬
ment.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 41,
after line 20, to insert:
SANTA YNEZ RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Santa Ynez River
watershed Is hereby approved substantially
in accordance with the recommendation of
the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document No. 518, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $418,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Trinity River Basin (Tex.) ,”
on page 42, line 8, after the word “of”, to
strike out $32,000,000” and insert “$27,-
348,000.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
heading “Little Tallahatchie River
Watershed,” on page 42, line 16, after the
word “of”, to strike out “$4,221,000” and
insert “$2,171,000.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 42,
after line 16, to insert:
YAZOO RIVER WATERSHED
The program on the Yazoo River watershed
is hereby approved substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendation of the Acting
Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
8355
No. 564, Seventy-eighth Cong^ss, second
session, at an estimated cost to the United
States of $12,500,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 43,
after line 17, to insert:
Buffalo Creek Watershed (New York)
BUFFALO, CAYUGA, AND CAZENOVIA CREEKS
The program on the watershed of Buffalo
Creek and its tributaries, Cayuga, and Caz-
enovia Creeks, is hereby approved substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document No. 574, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost to the United States of $739,000.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, under the
subhead “Washita River Watershed,” on
page 44, line 17, after the word “of”, to
strike out “$11,243,000” and insert $7,-
007,000.”
The next amendment was, on page 44,
line 19, to change the section number
from 11 to 13, and on page 45, line 4,
after the word “section”, to strike out
“10” and insert “12.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 45,
line 8, to change the section number from
12 to 14.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 45,
after line 23, to insert:
Sec. 15. (a) The Chief of Engineers of the
United States Army is authorized and di¬
rected to make examinations of any pri¬
vately owned or operated dam constructed
across navigable waters of the United States,
or across tributaries thereof.
(b) Whenever it shall appear, after rea¬
sonable notice and opportunity for hearing
to the person or corporation owning or con¬
trol' ing any such dam, that such dam is
being operated or maintained in such a man¬
ner as to jeopardize the safety of persons or
property either above or below such dam,
the Chief of Engineers shall enter orders
requiring such changes in the operation or
maintenance of such dam as he deems ap¬
propriate and necessary, and prescribing a
reasonable time within which such changes
shall be made. If, at the end of such reason¬
able time, the changes in operation or
maintenance ordered by the Chief of Engi¬
neers have not been made, the Chief of Engi¬
neers shall notify the United States district
attorney for the district in which such dam
or any part thereof is situated, who shall
forthwith cause criminal proceedings to be
instituted against the person, or corporation,
owning or controlling such dam.
(c) Any person or corporation willfully
failing or refusing to comply with an order of
the Chief of Engineers issued pursuant to this
section shall be deemed guilty of a misde¬
meanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Every month during which such willful
failure or refusal continues shall be deemed
to be a separate offense and shall subject
such person or corporation to the penalties
herein prescribed.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I sug¬
gest to the Senator from Louisiana that
this is a very highly controversial amend¬
ment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, we
have the evening before us, and I shall be
glad later to return and take up some of
the controversial items without wasting
the afternoon. We can pass over this
amendment temporarily.
8356 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 21
The ACffING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the amend¬
ment will be passed over.
That completes the committee amend¬
ments with the exception of those passed
over. The bill is before the Senate and
open to further amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment and ask that
it be read.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The amendment will be read.
The Chief Clerk. On page 14, after
line 5, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing:
Paragraph (d) of the lower Mississippi
Biver item in section 3 of the Flood Control
Act of August 18, 1941, is amended to read
as follows:
“The Chief of Engineers, with the approval
of the Secretary of War, shall reimburse local
authorities for actual expenditures found by
the Chief of Engineers to reflect the actual
cash value, regardless of State or local assess¬
ment valuations, for providing, at the re¬
quest of the United States, lands, rights-of-
way, and flowage easements required for the
set-backs of main-line Mississippi River
levees: Provided, That such lands, rights-of-
way, and flowage easements may be provided
by local authorities in accordance with local
legal procedure or custom: Provided further.
That this paragraph shall apply to all such
lands, rights-of-way, and flowage easements
that have been required by the United
States for such set-back levees since August
18, 1941, regardless of any reimbursement
that may have been agreed upon or made
since August 18, 1941.”
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
should like to make an explanation of
the amendment. I offer the amendment
not as a committee amendment, but in
my own behalf. I should have been very
glad to submit it to the committee but
it did not come to my attention until dur¬
ing the recess. The committee has been
so occupied with other matters that I did
not have opportunity to present it.
I think the amendment is a simple one.
Section 3 of paragraph (d) of the act of
August 18, 1941, reads as follows:
The Chief of Engineers, with the approval
of the Secretary of War, shall reimburse local
authorities for actual expenditures found by
the Chief of Engineers to be reasonable, for
providing at the request of the United States,
in accordance with the local legal procedure
or custom, rights-of-way and flowage»ease-
ments required for the future set-backs of
main-line Mississippi River levees.
Pursuant to such provision, where a
set-back levee was constructed on any
part of the Mississippi River, except in
Louisiana, the Secretary of War reim¬
bursed the local authorities for expendi¬
tures found by the Chief of Engineers to
be reasonable. In other words, the
United States Government paid for such
flowage easements the actual cash value,
which would be the reasonable value. As
a matter of fact, that is what the Chief
of Engineers determined, namely,' the
actual cash value. That was done in
Mississippi, Arkansas, and other States.
But the Constitution of Louisiana pro¬
vides that the State of Louisiana itself,
in acquiring easements for levee rights-
of-way, may not pay more than the
assessed value of the property. The
assessed value is usually far below the
actual value.
Because the provision of the act of
1941 requires that when the rights-of-
way have been acquired the reimburse¬
ment shall be made in accordance with
the local legal procedure or custom, the
legislative branch of the engineering de¬
partment has construed the language to
mean that Louisiana may not pay more
than the assessed value. The legislative
branch of the engineering department
has construed that to mean that Louisi¬
ana cannot be paid more than the
assessed value for the land.
I think that interpretation is wholly
wrong. I know something about the his¬
tory of it. We had a similar act back,
as I recall, in 1934, in reference to certain
tributaries of the Mississippi River, and
at that time General Markham, who Was
Chief of Army Engineers, did not want
the rights-of-way to be abstracted and
title passed on by the attorneys for the
Federal Government. He said it took
too long; that sometimes they were de¬
layed for years before they could go
ahead with the construction they had in
mind; but he said, “You have in Louisi¬
ana a right of appropriation; a levee
board can adopt a resolution appropriat¬
ing any land needed for easement pur¬
poses for the construction of levees, and
such appropriation vests title in the levee
board regardless of who the owner may
be.” So I wish it stated in the bill that
the lands and the easements are to be
acquired in accordance with the legal
local procedure or custom, so that we
can take advantage of the appropriation
provision of the Louisiana law. That is
the real meaning of the expression “in
accordance with the local legal customs
and procedure.” The legislative depart¬
ment of the engineers said that means
that we cannot pay a bit more than the
assessed value because under the Louisi¬
ana law the State cannot pay more than
the assessed value. They have acquired
some rights-of-way since then and have
refused to reimburse the levee board
more than the assessed value. I want
to place Louisiana on a parity with
Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, and
other States up and down the line, where
these rights-of-way are acquired, so that
the owners can be paid the actual cash
value deemed by the Secretary of War to
be reasonable.^ With that explanation I
submit the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Chandler in the chair) . The question is
on the adoption of the amendment of¬
fered by the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Overton].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, I
offer an amendment which I ask to have
stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated for the in¬
formation of the Senate.
The Chief Clerk. On page 26, it is
proposed to strike out lines 11 to 15 in¬
clusive, as follows:
The Rowlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat
River, substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in the report submitted to Congress by the
Secretary of War on November 26, 1942, at an
estimated cost of $29,230,000; and.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, as
will be noted, this amendment deals with
what is known as the Rowlesburg reser¬
voir on the Cheat River. I am submitting
the amendment because I do not believe
that this project at the great expense
involved, is justified. It calls for an ex¬
penditure of $29,230,000. I think, per¬
haps, that the item should not be con¬
tained in this bill. This project would
flood and cover thousands of acres of land
with water and create a vast lake where
land now exists.
Even with that result I would be less
insistent in urging my views on this part
of the bill if the project, was in fact a
flood-control projecl. But it is more
than that, it goes further, under the guise
of flood control it creates a power dam,
with the result that many workers who
earn their living in the production of
coal — a principal means of livelihood in
my State — would be probably thrown out
of work. This provision of the bill is not
good for my State or the population.
I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I have
taken this position in reference to the
projects contained in the bill, that where
a project relates exclusively to one State
and does not affect any other State and
the Senators from that State desire that
the project be not authorized, I am per¬
fectly willing, if it is a committee amend¬
ment, to ask that the Senate reject the
committee amendment. In this case
this is a provision contained in the bill
as passed by the House. I will raise no
objection whatsoever to the amendment
of the Senator from West Virginia, and
we can take the amendment to confer¬
ence and there thrash the matter out.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I thank the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment offered by the
Senator from West Virginia is agreed to.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I offer an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 38, after
line 10, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing:
Clear Pork of the Mohican River, in Rich¬
land County, Ohio.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, there
will be no objection at all to that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. DOWNEY. I offer an amendment
for the survey of the Napa River, Calif.
I send the amendment to the desk and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated for the infor¬
mation of the Senate.
The Chief Clerk. On page 55, be¬
tween lines 7 and 8, it is proposed to in¬
sert “Napa River, Calif.”
Mr. OVERTON. That, as I under¬
stand, is a survey item?
Mr. DOWNEY. It is.
Mr. OVERTON. I think the page is
wrong. There are not that many pages
in the bill. I suggest to .the Senator
from California that he modify his
amendment by providing that it be
inserted on page 39, after line 22.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I will
ask that the amendment be modified in
that respect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be so modified.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, a par¬
liamentary inquiry. Have all the
amendments beginning on page 38 been
adopted?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is informed they have been
adopted.
Mr. OVERTON. Have all the com¬
mittee amendments been agreed to
there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is so informed. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment offered
by the Senator from California tMr.
Downey], as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On ijage 26, be¬
tween lines 20 and 21 it is 'proposed to
insert the following:
No provision of this or any other act shall
be construed to authorize the construction
of Shoals Dam on the East Pork of the White
River in Martin County, Ind.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I am
sorry, but my attention was diverted and
I did not hear the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be restated.
The Chief Clerk restated the amend¬
ment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, may
we have an explanation of the amend¬
ment?
Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I will
say to the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana that the situation involved is
about the same as that explained on the
floor of the Senate by the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Bailey], It affects
a community in which I have lived for
the last 10 years. This matter has been
discussed publicly for several years, ever
since the Army engineers began their
survey. I want it understood that I am
in favor of flood control; however, this is
really not a question of flood control;
It is more a question of flood diversion,
because this dam would back water up
through the valley for miles, damaging
farm lands of several counties, railroads,
and highways, and affecting more than a
thousand farms which, I am informed,
contain the best farming land in this
■ community.
The matter has been taken up with
the Army engineers and they have prom¬
ised as soon as possible to bring about a
real flood program in this valley by a
substitute proposal which involves plant¬
ing, terracing, strip farming, and the
construction of a series of several dams
at the headwaters of the tributary to
hold the water where it falls. We have
a falling water table in this area. For
instance, Columbus, Ind., has to go deep¬
er each year for its water. The method
proposed by the substitute program
would raise the water level, control
floods, and protect the best farm land
in five counties and save the farmers
their homes.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr, JENNER. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. This dam is situated
wholly in Indiana in the Senator’s own
State, is it not?
Mr. JENNER. That is correct.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well; and it af¬
fects merely the area in the vicinity? .
Mr. JENNER. Yes. I now live only
20 miles from the proposed site of the
dam.
Mr. OVERTON. I have no objection
to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment c^ered by the Senator from In¬
diana.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I should
like to ask the chairman of the subcom¬
mittee whether the amendment relat¬
ing to Reno Beach, Lucas County, Ohio,
has been inserted in the bill.
Mr. OVERTON. It is a committee
amendment. I presume it has been
3-^r66d to
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
committee amendment has been agreed
to. Does the Senator from Ohio wish
to have the vote reconsidered?
Mr. TAFT. No. However, there is
nothing in the printed bill relating to this
project.
Mr. OVERTON. There is no objection
to the amendment. I was under the im¬
pression it was in the bill.
Mr. TAFT. I offer the amendment
which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 39, after
line 13, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing:
Reno Beach, Lucas County, Ohio, with a
view to protection of the Reno Beach-How-
ards Farm area and adjacent areas from
floods caused by frequent windstorms and
from increases in the lake level of Lake Erie.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ohio.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HAYDEN, Mr. President, I offer
the amendment which I send to the
Tlie PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 10, after
line 10, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing :
The project on the Little Colorado River
for local flood protection at Holbrook, Ariz.,
is hereby authorized substantially In accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers In House Document No. 648, Sev¬
enty-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $258,000.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
think the Senator has the paging of the
amendment wrong. It should be on page
29, after line 10.
Mr. HAYDEN. I should like to correct
the page where the amendment is to be
lns0rt/6d
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
correction will be made,
8357
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, let me
explain the background of the amend¬
ment, Proper authorization was made
by Congress for investigation of this proj¬
ect in the Flood Control Act of August
27, 1937. Investigation was made, and
the project was recommended by the
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
the Budget. All the formalities required
by law have been complied with. How¬
ever, there was a rule of the Senate Com¬
mittee on Commerce, of which I never
before heard, that there must be a find¬
ing that the benefits equaled the amount
to be appropriated, and that if the bene¬
fits were not equal, then an authoriza¬
tion should not be made.
In this case it was found that the bene¬
fits would amount tg nine-tenths of the
appropriation, but not ten-tenths. If it
had been ten-tenths, this project would
have come within the rule. Because of
this one-tenth difference between the
cost and the benefits, as found by the
Army engineers, the committee, by a rule
of its own, omitted this item from the
bill. Do I correctly state the situation?
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator’s state¬
ment is correct as to the facts.
Mr. HAYDEN. The situation is that
the Army engineers have found actual
benefits equal to nine-tenths of the ap¬
propriation. They also found unevalu¬
ated or intangible benefits to be excep¬
tionally large. An intangible benefit is
something that is very difficult to prove.
Through the town of Holbrook runs the
main line of the Santa Fe Railroad, a
transcontinental line, double tracked. A
river runs through the town, and if some¬
thing is not done, floods will inundate the
town, which is a county seat, with values
of many hundreds of thousands of dol¬
lars, and tear up the railroad. So it is
perfectly obvious that the benefits to be
conferred are greater than the amount
of the appropriation. But because of the
words tangible and intangible, the com¬
mittee has, it seems to me, split a very
fine hair. If it could have been shown
that the tangible benefits were equal to
the amount to be appropriated, then the
appropriation would have been allowed.
The actual tangible benefits as found by
the Corps of Engineers amount, as I have
said, to nine-tenths of the amount to be
appropriated. The committee does not
take into consideration any intangible
benefits, does not give us any credit for
them at all, whereas as a matter of fact
intangible benefits are and must be very
much greater where there is a town of
2,500 people, a county-seat town, and
there is a transcontinental railroad which
is bound to be washed away unless this
project is constructed.
Under such circumstances the chair¬
man of the subcommittee should be will¬
ing not to split quite so fine a hair, and
should consent that the amendment be
agreed to by the Senate. It does not
seem to me that such a strict adherence
to the rule is justified in the light of the
facts.
Mr. President, I have been at Holbrook
and know exactly what the situation is.
At one time the Little Colorado River
there had a deep and well-defined chan¬
nel, but due to overgrazing in the water-
No. 160-
4
8358
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
shed, vast quantities of silt have come
down and filled up the river bed, until
now the bed of the river is above the level
of the land in the town. The local au¬
thorities have themselves put in a tem¬
porary levee, as best they could, but any
big flood, such as those which have
occurred at different times on that
stream, would bring about such a condi¬
tion that that weak levee would not hold.
There is one other matter about de¬
termining what these benefits are. I
think the Corps of Engineers has not
adopted a rule which fits our western
section of the country at all. Here in
the East, where there are annual floods
every year or two, where floods are fre¬
quent, it is perfectly proper to divide the
damage done by the number of years in
which the floods occur. In the western
section of the country there is a totally
different situation. We may run along in
that arid section, as we do, with a series
of drought years, or with slight rain¬
fall at least, perhaps for 8 or 10 years.
Then there will be a tremendous flood
which does enormous damage, as I know
western Senators will testify, I see before
me the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Mn-LiidNl. There have been floods in
the city of Pueblo in his State from time
to time which nearly washed the town
away, but by the help of the Federal
Government the town was protected.
If we are to divide the amount of
damage done, which is certain to be done,
at any one particular time, by the num¬
ber of years in which floods occur, we do
an injustice to all the western section
of the country, where we have these tor¬
rential floods, and then have long dry
spells. That kind of a rule can be
adopted for the East, where floods are
frequent. It is a sound rule in the East,
but it does not fit in the West. So such
a basic rule for determining the ratio of
benefits to appropriations is not ap¬
plicable. In the second place, if it were
applicable, I contend that Holbrook
comes nine-tenths within the rule. If
it is that close, this amendment should
be agreed to by the Senate.
Mr. McFarland. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
Mr. McFarland. I should like to ask
my colleague if it is not a fact that the
testimony was to the effect that the last
flood did great damage to the town of
Holbrook.
Mr. HAYDEN. There is no question
about it. At that time the water came
up over the part of the town between
the railroad tracks and the river and
almost broke the tracks.
Mr. McFarland. The raising of the
river bed would make the damage much
greater in the future.
Mr. HAYDEN. I was about to point
out that the conditions have grown worse
since the time to which I have referred,
because of the accumulation of silt in
the river bed, which has resulted, as
the situation is today, in the bed of the
river being higher than parts of the
town. The river will just overflow a
large part of Holbrook unless something
is done about it.
Mr. McFarland. Mr. President, I
should like to add that when the sub¬
committee of the Committee on Recla¬
mation and Irrigation held hearings in
Arizona it was testified there that if this
flood-control project was not put into
effect the result would be that if an¬
other flood occurred it would practically
wipe out the town of Holbrook.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
very able Senator from Arizona [Mr.
Hayden] a moment ago wanted to know
whether the statement he made was cor¬
rect. It was very correct up to that
time, but when he discussed the question
of how the cost benefit ratio is calcu¬
lated the Senator fell into certainly a
very pardonable error. It is not a ques¬
tion of how much is to be appropriated
or the total cost. The engineers con¬
sider what the annual costs are and they
amortize them, and then they '*add the
interest, and so on. Then, as against
that they take the annual benefits which
would be derived from the improve¬
ment.
When the annual benefits exceed the
annual costs then the project is ripe for
authorization. It is necessary that we
have some rule about_ it, and we have
had to adhere to it rather strictly, be¬
cause it may be contended for instance,
that if the cost benefit ratio is 50 to 100,
then the project ought to be authorized.
Such a contention might be made.
What is done in determining the bene¬
fits is this: The whole flood history of a
particular stream is considered as far
back as It can be found, and so far as it
affects a particular town, and then there
is ascertained the damage which has
been caused throughout the years. If a
great flood has swept away Holbrook,
that would be considered, and that dam¬
age would be prorated over the years,
and there would be added to it any addi¬
tional damage that had occurred. That
is the only systematic way to go about it.
The Senator from Arizona is very per¬
suasive with me and with the committee,
and I think with the Senate, and I am
very much in sympathy with him. I
wish I could agree with him without de¬
parting from the rule respecting author¬
ization of his project. If the Senate
agrees to the Senator’s amendment, I
shall not shed any tears. I simply want
to explain that the committee cannot
depart from the rule. If we did, we
would soon be at sea.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, there is
just one point I should like to clear up.
Floods are more frequent in the East,
where there is plenty of rainfall, than
they are in the arid regions, and there¬
fore, if the damage is prorated annually,
and if the floods occur on the average
every 3 or 4 years in the East, the dam¬
age done would be .divided by 3 or
4, while if floods occur every 10 or 15
years in the West, the damage done must
be divided by 10 or 15, according to the
formula stated by the Senator from Lou¬
isiana. But when floods come In the
West, as they will come and have come
from time to time, although not so fre¬
quently as in the East, a town is wiped
out just as effectively whether it occurs
once every 10 or 15 years or once every
5 years. The situation as it exists re¬
quires that this protection be given to
the community, and to a great transcon¬
tinental railroad line so as to avoid dis¬
aster. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask
that the amendment be adopted.
Mr. OVERTON. There is no evidence
that the town has ever been wiped out, is
there?
Mr. HAYDEN. As I told the Senate,
when the flood occurred considerable
damage had been caused before the water
ceased to rise, but in the meantime the
conditions have changed for the worse.
I want the Senate to understand that
the amendment is recommended by the
Chief of Engineers. When I took it up
with him the second time he said, in sub¬
stance, “We can only repeat our recom¬
mendation. We urge the Congress to
adopt this amendment. In our judg¬
ment it should be adopted.”
Mr. OVERTON. I wish to advise the
Senate that if there were any changes
locally the engineers could easily report
.them, and a review report could be made.
That report could be made very promptly
and the item could have been placed in
this bill.
Mr. HAYDEN. Why does the Senate
need a review report when this project
has already been recommended by the
Chief of Engineers? In proof of what
I have said I ask to include as a part of
my remarks an extract from House Docu¬
ment No. 648, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, and a more recent letter
from the Secretary of War approving my
amendment.
There being no objection, the matters
referred to were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
War Department,
Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, January 2, 1942.
Subject: Little Colorado River, Ariz., and
N. Mex.
To: The Secretary of War.
1. I submit for transmission to Congress
my report with accompanying papers and an
illustration on preliminary examination and
survey of Little Colorado River and its tribu¬
taries upstream from the boundary of the
Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona, au¬
thorized by the Flood Control Act approved
August 28, 1937.
2. Little Colorado River rises in north¬
western New Mexico and flows northwesterly
315 miles to join the Colorado River in north
central Arizona, 293 miles above Boulder
Dam. Its drainage area of 27,800 square miles
ranges from mountains to relatively flat
desert country through which the lower river
and its tributaries have cut deep canyon
courses. The basin is sparsely populated and
its principal development is in farming and
stock raising. These activities are limited
due to scarcity of water. The average annual
precipitation ranges from 7 inches in the
downstream desert area to 25 inches in the
headwater mountains. Most of the main
stream and tributary channels have only
intermittent flow.
3. Flood flows of appreciable magnitude are
possible throughout the basin and, according
to the meager records available, have been of
comparatively frequent occuiTence, but the
threat of serious flood damage is concentrated
largely at Gallup, N. Mex., and Holbrook and
Flagstaff, Ariz. The possible future flood
damage in these localities, on an average an¬
nual basis, is estimated at $40,000, $12,600,
and $5,800, respectively. Tliere have been no
Federal Improvements primarily for flood
control. The Department of Agriculture is
making extensive improvements for erosion
control in the vicinity of Gallup, N. Mex.
Local Interests at Gallup, Holbrook, and Flag-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
staff have made various Improvements for
prevention of flooding and bank erosion but
none of the measures taken is adequate for
major floods. There are 26 reservoirs, ranging
from 500 to 22,000 acre-feet in capacity, and
numerous smaller reservoirs, primarily for
irrigation storage. The total capacity of these
projects is estimated at 150,000 acre-feet or
more, but their regulatory effect on major
flood flows is negligible. Local interests re¬
quest that consideration be given to im¬
provements for flood control, water conserva¬
tion, soil-erosion prevention, water-supply
and power development. They suggest 18
specific projects for which their partial esti¬
mate of costs is $1,421,880.
4. The district engineer reports that a
program designed for general control of
floods throughout the basin, either with or
without conservation or power-development-
features, would be clearly uneconomical at
this time, due principally to the compara¬
tively small extent of development and the
wide dispersion of flood damages. Of the 18
specific improvements suggested by local In¬
terests, only 3 were found to have sufficient
flood-control possibilities to warrant detailed
study: namely, the projects for Holbrook,
Gallup, and Flagstaff. Several alternate
methods of obtaining flood protection at
these localities were investigated, but no plan
was found to be economically justified at
Gallup and Flagstaff. Tire plan found most
suitable for Holbrook is a levee system at
an estimated cost of $258,000 for construc¬
tion, $29,000 for highway bridge and utility
alterations, and $1,000 for rights-of-way.
The annual carrying charges would be $12,-
500. The project would provide protection
for 95 percent of the town against floods up
to the estimated maximum experienced
flow and would result in tangible benefits
estimated at $11,100 annually. The district
engineer considers that these benefits, to¬
gether with the unevaluated benefit of pro¬
tecting this community which serves as a
supply center for 35,000 inhabitants in the
surrounding area, are sufficient to justify the
project and he recommends its construction
at an estimated cost to the United States of
$258,000 subject to certain conditions of local
cooperation. The division engineer concurs.
5. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors concurs in general In the view of
the reporting officers and in their recommen¬
dation for construction of the project.
6. After due consideration of these reports,
I concur in the views of the Board. Flood
control throughout the Little Colorado Basin
generally, by measures for which the War
Department would be responsible, is not eco¬
nomically justified under existing conditions
of development. The only individual proj¬
ect warranted at this time is the construc¬
tion of a levee at Holbrook, a community
which serves as a supply and distribution
center for 35,000 Inhabitants in the sur¬
rounding area. In my opinion, the tangible
benefits of the project together with the
unevaluated benefits of the Increased secu¬
rity and welfare of the inhabitants are
sufficient to justify the project at Holbrook,
and I recommend its construction, substan¬
tially as outlined in plan A in the report of
the district engineer, at an estimated cost to
the United States of $258,000 for construc¬
tion; subject to the condition that respon¬
sible local agencies give assurances satis¬
factory to the Secretary of War that they
will (a) provide without cost to the United
States all lands, easements, and rights-of-
way necessary for construction of the project;
(b) bear the expense of all necessary high¬
way, highway bridge, and utility alterations;
(c) hold and save the United States free
from claims for damages resulting from con¬
struction of the works; (d) maintain and
operate all works upon completion in accord¬
ance with regulations prescribed by the Sec¬
retary of War; and (e) establish and enforce
flood-channel limits and regulations satis¬
factory to the Secretary of War for protection
of the flood-carrying capacity of the channel.
E. Reybold,
Major General, Chief of Engineers.
War Department,
Washington, September 8, 1944,
Hon. JosiAH W. Bailey,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Bailey; I refer to your let¬
ter of August 10, 1944, requesting a report
on an amendment intended to be proposed
by Mr. Hayden to the bill (H. R. 4485) au¬
thorizing the construction of certain public
works on rivers and harbors for flood control,
and for other purposes.
The purpose of this amendment is to au¬
thorize a project on the Little Colorado River
for local flood protection at Holbrook, Ariz.,
at an estimated cost of $258,000.
In pursuance of authority contained in the
Flood Control Act approved August 28, 1937,
a survey of the Little Colorado River and its
tributaries upstream from the boundary of
the Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona,
was made and a report giving the results
thereof was transmitted to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives with the De¬
partment’s letter of May 31, 1944. In that
report a plan for local flood protection at
Holbrook, by the construction of a levee sys¬
tem at an estimated cost to the United
States of $258,000, was recommended for
adoption by Congress. The amendment pro¬
posed by Senator Hayden would authorize
this project substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in that report which is being printed as
House Document No. 648, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session.
The War Department favors enactment of
this amendment. The page reference should
be corrected as indicated on the copy of
amendment herewith to insure that the item
will go into the bill in its proper sequence.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that
there is no objection to the submission of
this report.
Sincerely yours,
Henry L. Stimson,
Secretary of War,
Mr. McFarland. Mr. President, will
my colleague yield?
Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
Mr. McFarland, in answer to the
Senator from Louisiana I should like to
read a brief portion of the testimony
which was taken before the subcommit¬
tee of the Senate Committee on Irriga¬
tion and Reclamation in Arizona last
summer. I read from the testimony of
Mr. J. R. McEvoy, the president of the
bank at Holbrook. He said, speaking of
the last flood:
This was just a few of approximately 20
buildings that were destroyed by this flood,
and a number of business houses and homes
in the residential district were damaged by
the water running into the basements.
This loss was approximately between $40,000
and $50,000 to the residents of Holbrook.
I do not wish to go into detail in regard
to this testimony, but it shows a great
loss to the town of Holbrook in the last
flood, and, as pointed out by my col¬
league, this damage will be nothing com¬
pared with what it will be in a future
flood, because the bed of the river has
risen until it is almost as high as the
dam,
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the testimony of Mr. McEvoy,
beginning on page 17 of the record, as
8359
well as that of Mr. William Darling, be
printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the testi¬
mony was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Mr. J. R. McEvoy. I realize as Judge Levi
Udall said, that time is precious, that you
have a good many other counties to hear
from. With your permission, I am going to
refer to this paper I have prepared here.
From what information of record I have
gathered together since 1915 to 1923 the town
of Holbrook was in danger of flood water.
In 1915 the Lyman Dam went out, causing a
flood at Holbrook.
I am going to bring before this commit¬
tee only the period from 1922 up to the pres¬
ent time, which is approximately 22 years,
during which time I. have been a resident of
Holbrook.
On September 17 and 18, 1923, a big on¬
rush of flood waters engulfed Holbrook
buildings. The first house to fall into the
river was Judge Crosby’s, next the J. C. Man-
ley home, which was owned by L. D. Cadwell,
the next two cottages belonging to R. D.
Greer were swept away. The Emil Berling
bakery was washed away, and the A. C. M. I.
warehouse went down the river Tuesday
about 4 p. m. in the evening. That was
just a few of approximately 20 buildings that
were destroyed by this flood, and a number
of business houses and homes in the resi¬
dential district were damaged by the water
running into the basements. This loss was
approximately between $40,000 and $50,000
to the residents of Holbrook.
During the flood the Little Colorado bridge,
built by the Arizona Highway Department,
was damaged, and people wondered how it
stood up so well. The Apache Railway Co.’s
bridge just west of the highway bridge was
damaged very badly. On September 21, 1923,
the Holbrook paper came out with the head¬
ing “Holbrook will dike the Little Colorado
River.’’ A meeting was called by the chair¬
man of the chamber of commerce, 'W. J.
Hookway. In attendance were W. J. Hook¬
way, John R. Hulet, Dr. S. Earl Taylor, Adolph
Schuster, Julius Wetzler, and Judge Jesse E.
Crosby, and a number of other citizens. In
fact, it probably was one of the largest meet¬
ings of a public kind held in Holbrook. The
• meeting was held at the Pastime Hall,
Wednesday, September 19, 1923. It was de¬
cided upon by this group that a dike was
the proper thing to build for flood protec¬
tion to the remaining property located at
the south of Porter Street.
Chairman of the board of supervisors
Clarence Owens, offered the assistance of the
county to the extent of approximately $6,000,
and the town of Holbrook contributed ap¬
proximately $1,000, and with this money
some rip-rapping was done for the river,
which was of great assistance. However, pe¬
riodically from 1923 on we were menaced
each year with the high water of the river.
The matter was taken up with the State
highway department, and they spent ap¬
proximately $15,000 in building one or two
more dikes near the south end of Porter
Street which helped divert the water to the
center of the river bed, therefore helping to
protect the rest of the residents along the
north end of the river bank. Tliis helped
a great deal, and in addition to this work,
the Lions Club of Holbrook planted tamarack
trees along the north bank of the river ad¬
jacent to Holbrook, which during the past
years have grown to a size where they are
some protection to that part of town. It
should be mentioned that the river over these
periods of years has been filling up with silt
until it has been almost level with the bank
of the river. This means that at flood time
the water can easily overflow the bank.
Up until 1925 after doing all we could in
Holbrook to protect ourselves from floods, to
8360
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
the extent of our financial abilities, we found
that it was more than we could take care of.
It was then that this matter of flood pro¬
tection to Holbrook was taken up with our
Senators and Representatives in Congress,
and we are glad to say that they have helped
us a great deal. About 1928 Army engineers
spent considerable time surveying the river,
and at this time easements were signed for
rights-of-way on the river bank, and as we
understand it, flood protection to the town
of Holbrook. This, of course, took several
years to work out, and with the war coming
on, this project was stopped for the time
being.
The flood that caused the damage to our
town was only from the Little Colorado
River. Less than 3 miles east of town
the Puerco River also runs into the Little
Colorado. If these two rivers should ever
flow floodwaters at the same time, there is
no question but that the biggest part of Hol¬
brook would be washed away.
I also might mention that we are unable
to purchase flood insurance which signifies
that the underwriters must consider it an
extraordinary risk.
I wish to state again that it has been
through the good help and assistance of our
Senators and Representatives in Congress
that we have been able, over a period of
years, to get over the importance of flood
protection to the town of Holbrook. In the
Arizona Republic of June 1 an article ap¬
peared headed Washington, D. C.. that two
flood-control projects were recommended:
One, Bill Williams River, Ariz., concrete
flood-control dam at Alamois site, $3,202,-
000: Little Colorado River, N. Mex.-Arlz.
levees, and others, $288,000. During the
month of May on page 4313, Congressional
Record, House, Mr. Murdock brought before
the House of Representatives that there is a
flood-control situation badly needed at Hol¬
brook, Ariz., on the Little Colorado River,
which has been looked into and carefully
studied by the Army Engineers. They made
their complete report some time ago and the
only thing left in finishing this report is that
it has not cleared the Bureau of the Budget
nor the Bureau of Reclamation; however, I
happen to know that the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion is favorable to it and it would interpose
no objection. He asked to have this referred
to the Senate after clearance is received and
later, if possible, to the conferees in regard
to this same bill, because the flood hazard at
Holbrook is very, very bad. The Army engi¬
neers’ report is complete up to the point indi¬
cated.
You can see, gentlemen, that considerable
work has been done, money has been spent,
but the job has not been completed. There
is no question in my mind, and I do not be¬
lieve there is any question in anyone’s mind
who has seen our rivers adjacent to Holbrook,
that we need flood protection as soon as
possible, and it is, without question, an emer¬
gency.
There has been Introduced in the House of
Representatives by Mr. Whittington, H. R.
4485, authorizing the construction of cer¬
tain public works on rivers and harbors for
flood control, and for other purposes. I have
read the bill, and I find that there are ap¬
proximately 80 different projects set up that
stated the amount of appropriation; however,
not one cent for the Little Colorado River
at Holbrook. It has been suggested that
possibly when this H. R. 4485 bill is presented
to the Senate that a rider might be placed on
the said bill setting up approximately $300,-
000 protection to the town of Holbrook.
Not being familiar with the procedure of
legislation through our Congress, I am not
in a position to say whether or not this would
be the proper thing to do. I do say this, that
if such an amendment could be attached to
this bill, it would give us the flood protection
that we need at Holbrook.
Now, gentlemen, if this suggestion meets
with your approval, we would appreciate your
support in our behalf. I feel today, like I
have every day since the flood of 1923, that
Holbrook is in a vulnerable spot to be washed
away some day if high waters come from the
Puerco and the Little Colorado Rivers. We
have been fortunate over the past several
years in not being menaced too much with
high waters. This was attributed to the
fact that we have had a drought in our vi¬
cinity during that period of time, and the
rains that we did get came at intervals so
that not a great deal of damage was done;
however, there were times when the entire
river bed filled up from the Little Colorado
River.
*****
Mr. William Darling. Mr. McFarland, Mr.
Hatch, and Mr. Bashore, I didn’t come here
to make any particular speech, but I do want
to say that I have lived in Winslow on the
Little Colorado for some 23 years; and being
in the engineering department of the rail¬
road, it has been necessary for me to study
the actions of the Little Colorado, and to
take such steps necessary to stop erosion and
keep our railroad together.
At Holbrook in particular, we have been
able to hold our railroad together for the
past 23 years, and in doing so, we have af¬
forded the town some protection, but not
all the town is entitled to. We have spent
the equivalent of seventy to ninety thousand
dollars in the part of the river that menaces
Holbrook, but as stated by Mr. McEvoy,
neither the Rio Puerco nor the Little Colo¬
rado which join just above Holbrook has
come down in flood stage in the same period.
Now, that can easily happen, as all of you
who live in the Southwest know, that ordi¬
narily our streams do not all run the same
day or the same hour, but if you get a stream
from the three directions, you can run all of
them together, and when they do, you have
a river full of water. And while the river
may stay full of water only 1 or 2 hours and
all be gone, in that same time all of the
damage that could be thought of can be,
done, because these rivers in the Southwest
are not slow-running pleasant streams like
they are in the Middle West. They are fast,
their stream beds are swift. All of you have
seen these big muddy streams and how they
just cut banks away like they were sugar.
And that can happen to any ordinary pro¬
tection like that afforded by ourselves.
In the case of the town of Holbrook, the
minor portion of the town lies between the
river and the Santa Fe Railroad. That por¬
tion has very little protection already— af¬
forded by the street. But that portion of
the town, which we might say is one-fifth of
the town, can be washed away very easily.
But the rest of the town north of the rail¬
road is really in a hazardous position also,
whether they know it or not. During the
past 25 to 30 years the river bed of the Little
Colorado for a distance of 5 miles below Hol¬
brook to a distance of 15 to 20 miles above
Holbrook has been filling up with sand that
has been coming down from New Mexico and
part of Arizona.
Senator Hatch. Yes; we know about sand
in New Mexico.
Mr. Darling. And gradually raising this
river bed until actually the threat is that
the river bed can be higher than the town.
Senator Hatch. That sounds ridiculous,
but I know as a matter of fact that it can
happen.
Mr. Darling. We have a case right at the
lower end of town where other streams come
In. ’The Leroux wash which 30 years ago
a man could ride horseback under. The rail¬
road raised that bridge 5 feet about 2 years
ago, and 6 years ago built a new line and
raised it another 5 feet.
Senator Hatch. Do you happen to be
familiar with San Marcial, N. Mex.?
Mr. Darling. The sahd was up to the
second-story windows.
Senator Hatch. That’s right.
Mr. Darling. And this same thing can hap¬
pen in Holbrook. And as we say, we of the
railroad can repair our damage as we always
have and keep the railroad. We know we
can repair our damage in 48 hours and keep
our railroad, but if the levees we have pro¬
vided for the town break through and the
town of Holbrook gets inundated, they can¬
not repair their damage with a lifetime of
work.
I don’t think there is a great deal more
that I can add to this, because all of you are
familiar with the Southwest streams and
exactly how they act. But where stream beds
rise the hazard grows and creeps up on the
people without their knowing it.
I would say that 4 years ago it happened
that the Army engineers had completely de¬
veloped a plan to take care of this situation,
and it is expected that this plan can be put
into effect in the following year if the war
'hadn’t come along. But naturally, with the
war on, it is necessary to underwrite and
pass up other expenditures. But it does ap¬
pear that this is a logical expenditure for
the people of Holbrook right after the war,
and whether it is done by the Bureau of
Reclamation or by the United State Army
engineers, it is still a Government function
because it is caused by streams beyond the
control of the town of Holbrook.
Senator McFarland. Thank you.
The PRESIDING' OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing .to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ari¬
zona [Mr. Hayden] on page 29, after
line 10.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I see
that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Barkley] is present. He desired the
first committee amendment, appearing
on page 1, to be passed over temporarily.
Is the Senator ready to proceed with it
now?
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I
asked that the first amendment be
passed over. That amendment seems to
depart from the legislative course which
Congress has heretofore adopted in re¬
gard to flood control. I do not know
what the committee had in mind, but
on the surface it looks as if this amend¬
ment was intended to preclude Congress
hereafter from establishing for the de¬
velopment of any river valley, such as
the Missouri River Valley, which is now
very much in the picture, and other val¬
leys, any agency similar to the T. V. A.
or patterned after the T. V. A. I do
not recall that this provision has been
in any previous flood-control bill. I wish
to read it so that Senators may under¬
stand it, and then I want to inquire of
the Senator from Louisiana what the
committee had in mind in inserting this
language in the bill:
It is the purpose of this act to establish
a definite policy of making use of existing
Federal agencies for the construction, oper¬
ation, and maintenance of all public im¬
provements in connection with navigation,
flood control, and allied activities; to Insure
coordinated operation of all Federal projects
therein for the Improvement of navigation
and alleviation of flood conditions; to pro¬
vide for realization of other benefits to be
derived from such projects; to facilitate
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
preparations and planning for post-war con¬
struction by the Federal Government in the
interest of employment: and to secure effi¬
cient executive management under the di¬
rection and supervision of the permanent
executive agencies already established by act
of Congress.
It seems to me that language could
have only one meaning, and that is to
preclude the creation of any more au¬
thorities in any valleys for the develop¬
ment of our natural resources.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. I know the Senator
is familiar with the Flood Control Act
of 1936, because he was very active on
the floor in the passage of the measure.
The Senator was very much interested
in the passage of that measure at the
time. I shall now quote, if the Senator
will permit me, from that act, because
the Senator desires to know whether
there has ever been previous legislation
along this line.
Mr. BARKLEY. I was reading the
amendment in order to inquire of the
Senator - •’
Mr. OVERTON. Whether there has
ever been legislation along the same line?
Mr. BARKLEY. I wished to inquire
of the Senator the purpose of reinserting
this language, in substance, in the pres¬
ent bill.
Mr. OVERTON. There has been legis¬
lation along this line. In other bills we
have usually had a general statement of
policy. Let me read from the act of 1936;
Sec. 2. Hereafter Federal investigations
and improvements of rivers and other water¬
ways for flood control and allied purposes
shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall
be prosecuted by the War Department under
the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and
Federal Investigations of watersheds and
measures for run-off and waterflow retarda¬
tion and soil-erosion prevention on water¬
sheds shall be under the jurisdiction of and
shall be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture under the direction of the Secre¬
tary of Agriculture, except as otherwise pro¬
vided by act of Congress.
The act further provided for examina¬
tions, reports, surveys, and so forth.
That is a general declaration of policy,
somewhat similar to the language of the
pending bill.
Mr. BARKLEY. What was the date
of the act from which the Senator just
read,
Mr. OVERTON. The act of June 22,
1936.
Mr. BARKLEY. My attention was
brought to this provision in the bill by
an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dis¬
patch, which may have come to the at¬
tention of the Senator from Louisiana.
The editorial was published on the 12th
of November. It refers to this bill and
this particular provision as a grave
threat to the Missouri Valley Authority,
which is provided for in legislation now
pending before the Congress. I believe
one bill was introduced by the Senator
from Montana [Mr. Murray] and an¬
other by the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O’Mahoney]. Those bills have not
as yet been reported by the committee.
Of course, the Senator will recall that
only a few days ago the President recom¬
mended the creation of seven different
valley authorities in the United States,
somewhat after the pattern of the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority. I realize that no
language in a bill like this would bind
future Congresses. It would not prevent
a future Congress from establishing a
separate authority in any valley in the
country, as a matter of law or authority.
However, I was wondering whether the
language which has been inserted in the
bill, declaring it to be the policy that
hereafter no improvements of any kind
shall be undertaken on any rivers except
through existing agencies, was intended
to have whatever effect it might have
upon future Congresses in determining
whether there should be a Missouri Val¬
ley Authority, a White River Valley Au¬
thority, or some other river valley au¬
thority based upon the pattern set by
the Tennessee Valley Authority.
I am interested in that question, not
particularly because of any geographical
situation, but because of the possibility
that ultimately the Cumberland River
may be included, and such a program
might be established under the Tennes¬
see Valley Authority. If the Cumberland
River should ever be treated as the Ten¬
nessee River has been treated, it might be
included under the existing Tennessee
Valley Authority. Bills have heretofore
been introduced to that jeffect. They
have not been acted upon by the Con¬
gress, although one of them did paSS the
Senate.
I should like to know what was behind
the committee’s proposal undertaking to
freeze all future river improvements, for
whatever purpose, in existing authorities,
which would be the Corps of Engineers
of the Army and the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion of the Department of the Interior.
We all know that there has been a dis¬
pute between the Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation of the De¬
partment of the Interior with regard to
jurisdiction over rivers. It seems that
they have now reached a sort of armi¬
stice. Whether that is an agreement of
convenience, or whether it is one involv¬
ing any principle, or whether it works to
the more efficient administration of our
river valleys, I do not know. However,
the discussion of this problem in the edi¬
torial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
rather hints at the idea that the two di¬
visions, one in the Army and the other
in the Department of the Interior, have
got together in order to forestall the crea¬
tion of any other authorities or agencies.
I should like to know from the Senator
from Louisiana just what was in the
minds of members of the committee when
this amendment was adopted.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, flood-
control legislation is progressive. The
Federal Government did not take serious
charge of flood control imtil 1928, follow¬
ing the great disaster of 1927 in the lower
Mississippi Valley. Then the Congress of
the United States declared that the con¬
trol of floods in the lower Mississippi
Valley was a national obligation, and
undertook to authorize projects and the
appropriation of money. The work was
8361
to be done solely under the supervision
of the Army engineers.
In 1936 the Congress proceeded much
further. It took a very forward step, and
declared that flood control generally
throughout the Nation was a national
obligation. It proceeded to authorize
certain projects for that purpose and
placed them under the supervision of the
Army engineers, to be assisted by the De¬
partment of Agriculture in reference to
the headwaters of various streams.
Flood-control legislation is very pro¬
gressive. It has proceeded step by step
under the direction of the Congress, of
which the Senator from Kentucky is a
very distinguished Member, until we have
intei’twined it with irrigation, with the
generation of power, and with a broader
and more extensive agricultural develop¬
ment of lands bordering upon streams or
their upper reaches. So various agencies
of the Government have come into the
picture to deal with this subject. Each
time we have had a flood-control bill we
have had a declaration of .policy, not in
this exact language, but in language
somewhat similar to it. We have now
reached the point where, instead of men¬
tioning all the various agencies, we
simply say, as suggested in this amend¬
ment:
It is the purpose of this act to establish a
definite policy of making use of existing Fed¬
eral agencies —
Such agencies include the Bureau of
Reclamation, when it comes into the pic¬
ture in relation to irrigation dams, reser¬
voirs, and so forth. It includes the Fed¬
eral Power Commission, which enters into
the picture when a dam has anything to
do with power, and also the Department
of Agriculture when it is interested in
any of the projects contained in the
bill. Therefore, we make use of exist¬
ing Federal agencies which may be
interested —
for the construction, operation, and main¬
tenance of all public improvements in con¬
nection with navigation, flood control, and
allied activities; to insure coordinated opera¬
tion of all Federal projects therein for the
Improvement of navigation and alleviation of
flood conditions; to provide for realization of
other benefits to be derived from such proj¬
ects: to facilitate preparations and planning
for post-war construction by the Federal
Government in the interest of employment;
and to secure efficient executive management
under the direction and supervision of the
permanent executive agencies already estab¬
lished by act of Congress.
It does not seem to me that that gen¬
eral provision smacks of seven regional
authorities or of a blow against seven
regional authorities. We use the pres¬
ently constituted and existing agencies
to help in the development of our water
resources. At any time Congress wishes
to deprive the engineers of control of
navigation or flood control, or wishes to
destroy the Bureau of Reclamation inso¬
far as it has to deal with irrigation, it
can do so, and have one authority after
another over the whole Mississippi River
and all its tributaries, or can bring it all
under one great authority. All that is
within the power of Congress.
The newspaper to which the able Sena¬
tor has referred is one of the St. Louis
8362
November 21
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
newspapers — the St. Louis Post-Dis¬
patch — is it not?
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes.
Mr. OVERTON. It is a strong ad¬
vocate of these authorities, as I under¬
stand. If in the opinion of the lay editor
of that newspaper any provision of the
bill might militate against the future
authorization of some authority, I can
understand why he would become very
much excited about it; but I am surprised
that the able senior Senator from Ken¬
tucky should become excited about such a
provision as this one.
Mr. BARKLEY. I am not excited at
all; I was never more calmer in my life.
Mr. OVERTON. I am very glad to
hear that.
Mr. BARKLEY. I simply endeavored
to obtain, in a calm way, a clear state¬
ment from the committee about what
was in the back of the heads of the mem¬
bers of the committee when they inserted
this provision.
I should also like to refer to the report
filed by the committee when this provi¬
sion was inserted. I read the following
from the report;
The committee is of the opinion that the
best interest of the country as a whoie will
be served by fully utilizing Federal agencies in
the planning, construction, maintenance, and
operation of all Improvements for the de¬
velopment of the Nation’s water resources.
That is very broad language. If the
Senator had said in his amendment and
in his report that, insofar as the proj¬
ects carried in the bill are concerned,
they advocate the hmitation of juris¬
diction over them to existing agencies,
that would have been one thing. But
it seems to me to be a fair interpretation
of this language to say that it projects
Itself into the future, and attempts to
declare a policy on the part of Congress,
because, as I read further, it says —
The established Federal agencies have
highly trained personnel that are specialists
in their respective fields. The chiefs of the
principal bureaus and commissions directly
responsible for the preparation of plans and
for the administration of the national pro¬
gram for the development of the water re¬
sources of the country have entered into
an agreement to Insure cooperation on mul¬
tiple-purpose projects.
Those are the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Corps of Army Engineers
for rivers and harbors, which have been
at each other’s throats for a long time
over the question of jurisdiction. They
have now come to an agreement.
Mr. OVERTON. If the Senator will
permit me to interrupt him at this point,
let me say that I do not think they
have been at each other’s throats. I
think they have gotten along together
quite well.
Mr. BARKLEY. But they have dis¬
agreed.
Mr. OVERTON. Perhaps they have
disagreed in some instances. But in the
case of the Missouri Rive;r Basin develop¬
ment, which has caused so much com¬
ment, when they got together they
found that the differences between them
were very few. If the Senator will read
the report, he will see that when they
got together their differences were
reconciled.
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not know under
what auspices they have met and have
entered into an agreement. I read
further from the report;
Under the terms of that agreement, con¬
ferences are held in Washington at least
once each calendar month for the purpose
of discussing the results of studies and in¬
vestigations. adjusting differences of opinion,
and promoting ways and means for imple¬
menting the agreement.
The committee believes that the most ef¬
fective means of insuring efficient executive
management and a uniform administration
of the national policies enunciated by Con¬
gress with respect to navigation, flood con¬
trol, irrigation, development of hydroelectric
power, water -flow retardation, and soil-ero¬
sion prevention is through the utilization
of the permanent executive agencies already
established by acts of Congress for the ad¬
ministration of these programs and it recom¬
mends adoption of the amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. That Is a conclusion.
Mr. BARKLEY. I cannot read into
that language anything except the pur¬
pose, at least, to try to commit the Con¬
gress in advance of any separate treat¬
ment of any river which might come
under the jurisdiction of Congress.
Frankly, I do not know what other reason
could have actuated the committee in
inserting that language.
Mr. OVERTON. Does the Senator
disagree with the conclusion that these
projects should be under the control of
established agencies?
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not disagree.
Mr. OVERTON. Does the Senator
disagree with the conclusion that the
projects should be under the control of
experts long trained and schooled in this
kind of work? That is the statement
made by the committee.
Mr. BARKLEY. Of course, I do not
disagree to that. Neither do I disagree
to the proposal or suggestion that, so
far as the projects to be carried on under
this bill are concerned, which are flood-
control projects, or even insofar as the
rivers and harbors bill is concerned,
which relates to the ordinary and routine
improvement of our rivers and harbors,
they should be under the jurisdiction of
experts.
But the Senator from Louisiana knows
what I have in mind. Congress decided
to establish the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority. It may decide — I do not know
about that — to establish or adopt the
, St. Lawrence waterways project, in which
the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Aiken]
is vitally concerned. It may decide to
establish an Arkansas Valley Authority.
It may undertake to set up a separate
Government agency hereafter. While I
agree that the language used by the com¬
mittee cannot prevent Congress from do¬
ing that in the future -
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly not; I
agree thoroughly with the Senator that
it could not.
Mr. BARKLEY. Nevertheless, I won¬
der if it would not normally commit and
bind the Congress to the proposition, if
any separate valley development should
be undertaken, of putting it into the
hands of some existing agency, instead of
into the hands of a new agency, as we
did in the case of the Tennessee Valley
Authority,
Mr. OVERTON. It would be futile for
the committee in a report or in this bill
to undertake to bind the Congress in
respect to its action in the future.
Mr. BARKLEY. I realize the futility
of attempting to do so.
Mr. OVERTON. We cannot possibly
do so. -
I wish to state that I really believe
that navigation should be under the con¬
trol of the Board of Army Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors. It is one of the
presently constituted agencies. I be¬
lieve that flood control should be under
the Board of Army Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors. I believe that irrigation
projects and other related projects
should be under the control of the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation, which for 40 years
has been dealing with that subject, and
has engineers who are now schooled
and trained in it and are experts. The
Army engineers have been dealing with
navigation projects for more than 120
years, and with flood-control -projects
ever since we began them. They are
the greatest dam builders in the world.
They are the greatest levee builders in
the world. They are the greatest reser¬
voir builders in the world. As I re-
nlarked in my opening statement in
connection with the pending bill, I
think the splendid schooling we have
given our Army engineers has been of
immense value to them in the war in
which we are now engaged, and in aid¬
ing our soldiers on the battle fronts all
over the world.
Now I am expressing and the com¬
mittee is expressing just what we think —
and what I think, too — namely, that we
should not overlook the Department of
Agriculture. It is doing splendid work.
I think these agencies should be recog¬
nized. That is just what is said. Con¬
gress has not yet undertaken to estab¬
lish any other authority. If it desires
to create some other agency, very well;
that would be a matter to be determined
by the Congress.
Mr. BARKLEY. I understand that.
I raise no question about the competence
of the Army engineers in regard to the
improvement of rivers and harbors or
in regard to flood control. Neither do
I question the ability of the Reclamation
Service in matters of irrigation. But we
all know that we are reaching a period
in the development of our country when
we must take into consideration indus¬
trial development, hydroelectric-power
development, and all sorts of things
which are incidental to the improvement
of rivers or which may be primarily
more important in some sections of the
country than the mere improvement of
rivers by way of dredging them or other¬
wise providing deeper channels for
navigation. It is impossible to separate
flood control from such development.
I think we are rapidly reaching such
a point in this country that we must uti¬
lize our river resources. Not only must
we integrate them simply in order to
deepen channels and to dredge harbors
but we must integrate them in regard to
the whole industrial and agricultural de¬
velopment of the valleys. I think we
must soon enter upon a comprehensive
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
program for the utilization of water
power.
Mr. OVERTON. If the Senator had
attended the hearings he would know,
or if he will read the printed hearings
he will find, that the bill now before the
Senate goes a long way toward doing
what the Senator has suggested. The
bill deals with hydroelectric energy, irri¬
gation, and reclamation, as well as with
navigation and flood control. It inter¬
relates those various activities.
Mr. BARKLEY. I am not a member
of the committee and, as the Senator
from Louisiana knows, I cannot attend
all the hearings which the committee
holds, and neither can I attend all hear¬
ings which take place before other com¬
mittees of the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. That is the reason
Mdiy I suggested that the Senator read
the hearings.
Mr. BARKLEY. I appreciate the Sen¬
ator’s suggestion, and I hope that I can
follow it.
In order that the pending amendment
may not be misinterpreted by anyone
interested in the development of water
power, would the Senator object to an
amendment at the end of the committee
amendment reading substantially as fol¬
lows :
Provided, however. That this section shall
not be Interpreted to preclude the right of
Congress hereafter to establish different
agencies, if it should see fit, for the develop¬
ment of our water resources.
Mr. OVERTON. That would be a
pretty broad provision. It would pro¬
vide that nothing could be construed to
inhibit the power of Congress to enact
future legislation. Such an amendment
would deal very broadly with the subject.
Mr. BARKLEY. I agree that the
pending amendment would not bind fu¬
ture Congresses but it is subject to being
misinterpreted by those who do not al¬
ways understand the technicalities of
congressional legislation. If the amend¬
ment cannot bind Congress in the fu¬
ture —
Mr. OVERTON. Why not say so?
Mr. BARKLEY. Why not say so?
Mr. OVERTON. Why not say so in a
broader sense? We want it to apply not
merely to future agencies, but in other
ways and to new methods. Should we
not say, “It will not bind Congress at all
in the future with respect to legislation
dealing with flood control, power, navi¬
gation, and so forth”? Merely to say
“agencies” is to stop too soon.
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not care how
the language is framed. I realize that
so far as binding any future Congress is
concerned, legally or constitutionally,
the language of the committee amend¬
ment is nugatory. But many people
throughout the country, especially in the
Middle West, may misinterpret the lan¬
guage in the way which I have indicated.
If the Senator will agree to language
which would dissipate such fear, I think
it would go a long way toward reconciling
many of those people to the amendment
offered by the committee. The amend¬
ment could not and would not bind future
■ Congresses, but notwithstanding that
many persons think it would bind future
Congresses, I think the language should
be made clear. It should be plain that
it will not bind Congress in the future
regarding the manner of developing our
water resources.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. If, in con¬
nection with the pending bill, we do what
the Senator sug.gests, it seems to me that
language should be written into every
future act to the effect that we are not
attempting to abolish the Constitution of
the United States, and that one Congress
cannot bind a future Congress. There is
no sense in putting such a provision into
this measure unless it is put into every
measure proposed in the future. Every
person who has any sense, and who has
read the Constitution of the United
States, knows that one Congress cannot
bind a future Congress, or bind itself for
the duration of the Congress. To insist
on writing into this bill a provision that
we are not attempting to bind a future
Congress, and that we are still operating
under the Constitution of the United
States, seems to me to be ridiculous.
Mr. BARKLEY. It may be that the
original amendment is ridiculous, but
-while constitutional lawyers like the able
Senator from Missouri understand the
bill, there are many millions of people
throughout the- country who do not
understand it. I dare say that the Sen¬
ator from Missouri is more interested in
this matter than I am.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am cer¬
tainly very much interested in the pro¬
posal. I am interested in it as a matter
of the most vital concern to the people
of my State, and the people of the Mis¬
souri and the Mississippi River Valleys.
But picking out peccadilloes, and under¬
taking to make attacks on the declara¬
tion of the flood-control pblicy on the
theory that it might bind some future
Congress, seems to me to be an attempt
to defeat the whole measure.
Mr. BARKLEY. Of course, if the
Senator wishes to do so, he can put an
interpretation upon the measure and
endeavor to defeat it, but that is not
my objective. My apprehensions are
aroused by the fears of people in the
Senator's own State with regard to the
authority being contemplated.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It is not con¬
templated by the people of the Missouri
River Valley, but only by two newspapers
in St. Louis. I intend to discuss their
interests in the matter before the discus¬
sion on this bill is concluded.
Mr. BARKLEY. In order that the
Record may show the ground upon which
I rose to interrogate the Senator from
Louisiana, I ask unanimous consent that
the editorial from the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch be printed in the Record as a
part of my remarks.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
should include the editorial of the Star-
Times, because it always follows thf
St. Louis Dispatch about 2 weeks later.
Mr. BARKLEY. I have not seen the
editorial to which the Senator refers, but
I am sure the Senator from Missouri
would be willing to put it into the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Kentucky?
8363
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
A Grave Threat to the M. V. A. — Deal Is
Cooking in the Senate That Would Put
Off Indefinitely the "One Big Plan for
One Big River”
A situation which greatly concerns Presi¬
dent Roosevelt and Vice-President-Elect
Truman is developing in the United States
Senate this week.
It is a situation perilous to the creation of
a Missouri Valley Authority — perilous to the
one big plan for one big river to which the
President and Mr. Truman solemnly pledged
themselves in the campaign just closed.
It is a situation which threatens to deny
the people of the Missouri Valley the bless¬
ings and security which unified development
of the valley’s resources would bring.
What is this situation?
The first order of business before this
“lame duck’’ session of the Senate is two
measures — the rivers and harbors bill and the
flood-control bill. If they are pased in con¬
templated form, it may delay M. V. A. for
years — indeed, the deal now being cooked up,
if successful, may be a fatal stab in the back
for the M. V. \. idea.
Last spring an old controversy between the
Army engineers and the Reclamation Bureau
burst into flame before Congress on the ques¬
tion of bureaucratic control of the Missouri
River. The engineers fought bitterly for the
Pick plan. The Reclamation Service Bureau
fought for the Sloan plan. And no holds
barred.
The resumption of this old and apparently
irreconcilable feud between two vested gov¬
ernmental interests convinced many people
that the time had come to cut the Gordian
knot by advancing the M. V. A. idea. That
idea would rescue the Missouri Valley from
contending factions and place it under har¬
monious and scientific, but above all, under
unified and nonpolitical management.
As the M. V. A. idea took Instant hold upon
the imagnation of the country, and won the
ultimate endorsement of the President in a
special message to Congress, a strange and
wondrous thing occurred.
The feudists, fearful of the M. V. A., lest it
invade their bureaucratic precincts, began to
murmur softly to each other. And now —
marvelous to relate — a marriage between old
and bitter enemies has been arranged. The
United States Senate will be asked th’s week
to officiate as clergyman at this odd alliance.
But this is no love match. This is a mar¬
riage of convenience, arranged not only to
kill off M. V. A. but to save the interests
jealously guarded by two powerful Govern¬
ment agencies.
This is what the Senate will be asked to
do by Senator Overton, of Louisiana, spokes¬
man for the Army engineers and certain lower
river interests, and by Senator O’Mahoney,
who represents the Reclamation Bureau and
certain upper river interests:
It will be asked to amend either the rivers
and harbors bill or the flood-control bill by
the adoption of a written compact between
the Army engineers and the Reclamation
Bureau.
What is this compact? It is an attempt to
reconcile the hitherto clashing views of the
two Government agencies. It is an attempt
to pass off as an amicable plan a compromise
between two points of view which are neces¬
sarily antagonistic.
Broadly speaking, the legal concerns of the
Army engineers are navigation and flood con¬
trol. The legal concern of the Reclamation
Bureau is irrigation. Neither is empowered
by law or equipped by experience or tradition
to look at the river as a whole, or to formulate
one big plan for one big river. Here the fatal
impasse rests. Here it has always rested.
Here it will continue to rest, despite the last-
8364
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
minute skin-saving deal that has been con¬
trived.
Why would passage of the Overton-O’Ma-
honey deal vitiate or destroy the M. V. A.
Idea? It would do so by Intrenching through
act of Congress the authority over the river
of the Army engineers and the Reclamation
Bureau. The preamble of the flood-control
bill expressly states: “It is the purpose of
this act to establish a deflnite policy of
making use of existing Federal agencies for
the construction, operations, and mainte¬
nance of all public improvements in connec¬
tion with navigation, flood control, and allied
activities * *
It would delay or destroy the M. V. A. idea
because, although the two pending bills are
only authorization measures, they would set
a divided pattern for future development
of the river. Passage of the deal would pledge
the Nation by law and in honor to the execu¬
tion of a plan which consigns the Missouri
River to the same old pulling and hauling
which has cursed it in the past.
The deal now cooking would continue the
system of “pork barrel’’ politics in Missouri
River development as against a scientific de¬
termination of the valley’s needs. It would
continue remote control from Washington
of the valley’s destiny as against the decen¬
tralized, regional control that M. V. A. would
represent. In a word, it would be to ignore,
to repudiate, and defy the basic principles
which have made the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority the outstanding success that it is,
admired throughout the world.
Is M. V. A. to be delayed or done to death
by a “lame duck” Congress which does not
fully represent the mandate of the people at
the polls? Is this to be done before newly
elected champions of M. V.*A. like Senator-
elect Moses, of North Dakota, are permitted
to be heard? Is it to be done in the hope that
the President, burdened with a thousand
concerns, will not notice this sabotage of his
own idea?
Will President Roosevelt stand for it?
WIU Vice President-elect Truman stand for
ft? Will Senator Murray stand for it? Will
Senator Gillette stand for it? Will Senator
Lister Hill stand for it? If it is passed and
goes to conference, will Representatives
Cochran and Rankin stand for it? All these
men stand for M. V. A. Pour of them have
M. V. A. bills pending in Congress.
This editorial does not propose either delay
or defeat of the river and harbor and flood-
control bills. ’These bills are national in
scope. They Include many worthy develop¬
ments — in Connecticut, in the Great Lakes
region, in Boston Harbor, In the Santa Ana
River Basin, and even In Hawaii. Our con¬
cern is solely and simply with the Missouri
Valley. It is a concern born of a century of
failure on the part of existing agencies to
control the Missouri River. It is a concern
born of a conviction that a Missouri Valley
Authority can control our floods, can pro¬
vide navigation, conserve our soil, give us
low-cost power, and bring the new life of
irrigation to our thirsty uplands.
This we urge upon the Senate : Amendment
of the river and harbor bill or the flood-
control bill, or both, to substitute the Presi¬
dent’s M. V. A. proposal for every section of
both acts that concerns the Missouri Valley.
The written compact made public by Sena¬
tors Overton and O’Mahonet Is, in fact, a
substitute for the Missouri Valley provisions
of these bills. It is a substitute which would
prolong indefinitely an impossible situation
by which the river has many masters. If
there is to be substitution, it should be the
kind of substitution, the kind of amendment
tliat will give this river one master, one plan,
one destiny.
The President and a Democratic Congress
have Just received a mandate of approval for
such progressive policies and public works as
are typified by the M. V. A. idea. Moreover,
that Idea was endorsed during the campaign
by the President and the Vice President-elect.
In view of this endorsement, how can Con¬
gress permit two Government agencies to
sneak past it legislation which will vitiate or
destroy a specific pledge to the people by the
newly elected administration?
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Ml’. AIKEN. I Invite the Senator’s
attention to the wording of the amend¬
ment which was offered earlier in the
day by the Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. Bailey], and approved by the Com¬
mittee on Commerce. It reads in part
as follows:
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
for the complete coordination of such power
and energy with other power developments,
both private and public, in the area contigu¬
ous with such projects. It shall be stipu¬
lated in connection with any sale that any
and all savings realized by the purchasers
shall be passed on under Federal regulation
where no State regulation exists to the con¬
suming public : Provided, That unless 90 per¬
cent of the firm power produced at such
projects shall be demanded or purchased
within 3 years after completion of construc¬
tion of such projects, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to construct transmis¬
sion lines for the purpose of selling such
power at wholesale.
I believe that the Senator can see that
the amendment dovetails into the decla¬
ration of purpose which the committee
adopted for the bill, and that with the
declaration of purpose as contained in
this amendment in the bill the effect
would be to prevent the setting up of
yardsticks in any area where yardsticks
for the sale of electric power do not pres¬
ently exist. It would prevent the ex¬
pansion of the Tennessee Valley Author¬
ity to include the Cumberland River ter¬
ritory, or the setting up of new valley au¬
thorities. It would prevent the inaugu¬
ration of public power distribution at al¬
most any place where it does not exist
at the present time, and it would also
militate against the expansion of rural
electrification cooperatives into sections
where they do not presently exist. I
think the amendment which has been
offered by the "Senator from North Caro¬
lina goes with the declaration of pur¬
poses to which I referred, and that it
would have the effect which I have stated.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. BURTON. Speaking as a member
of the minority party on the subcommit¬
tee, I wish to endorse the provision under
discussion. It seems to me that we have
endeavored to do a limited thing. We
have endeavored to make use of the exist¬
ing facilities, and to meet questions pre¬
sented to the committee. Obviously that
would not in and of itself prohibit Con¬
gress from doing anything else in the
future, and neither would the first para¬
graph of the bill put any limitations upon
future Congresses. Furthermore, noth¬
ing can be found in the proposal which
would prohibit the establishment of such
authorities as the T. V. A., the M. V. A.,
or anything of that nature.
The reason for this first paragraph, as
I see it, is this: We have done a good
many things in the bill itself, but we
have proceeded on the theory of making
use of existing facilities. The first para¬
graph does not prohibit future Con¬
gresses, it does not prohibit executive
agencies, from establishing new facilities,
but it does expressly say that this act
shall not be used and cited as authority
for an Executive order establishing any
kind of a new agency under the act, be¬
cause here we have set out to do a thing
with existing agencies. We do not pro¬
hibit Congress from doing something
else; we do not prohibit executive au¬
thority from doing something else under
some other authority, but we do not want
this act cited by implication or other¬
wise as authority for new agencies. I
think it is proper for that reason that the
provision should be in the bill.
Mr. BARKLEY. If that be the pur¬
pose, would the Senator from Ohio and
the Senator from Louisiana object to the
insertion of a very small amendment,
namely on page 1, line 5, after the word
“improvements” to insert the words “pro¬
vided for in this act”, so that it would
read:
It is the purpose of this act to establish a
definite policy of making use of existing
Federal agencies for the construction, op¬
eration, and maintenance of all public im¬
provements provided for in this act in con¬
nection with navigation, flood control, and
allied activities.
Mr. OVERTON. I would have no ob¬
jection to the inclusion of those words.
Mr. BARKLEY, I offer that as an
amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I should like to have
my amendment adopted.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I want to have the
amendment stated again.
Mr. BARKLEYj, The amendment I
offer is on line 5, after the word “im¬
provements” to insert the words "pro¬
vided for in this act.”
Mr. McCLELLAN. On what page?
Mr. BARKLEY. On page 1. It is an
amendment to the committee amend¬
ment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. At what point does
It come in?
Mr. BARKLEY. It comes in on line 6
after the word “improvements,” next to
the end of the line.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Vei’y well.
Mr. OVERTON. So that the general
declaration of policy would apply to
projects provided for in this act.
Mr. BARKLEY. The policy Is made
applicable to projects carried in this act.
Mr. OVERTON. I do not think it
would be applicable to any other projects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ken¬
tucky to the committee amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, in
this connection I wish to say that sec¬
tion 1 now under discussion, which un¬
dertakes to formulate a policy, is the
same as a section of a bill which I in¬
troduced in November 1943, in which I
attempted to deal with development of
the Arkansas and White River Basins.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
I believe section 1 of the pending bill is
a verbatim copy of the first section of
the bill which I introduced for that pur¬
pose. My thought in trying to coordi¬
nate the development of the lower Ar¬
kansas and White River Basins was to
establish a definite policy, a legislative
policy, with respect to the construction
and operation of all the projects which
might be authorized on those streams.
I had in mind, of course, to deal with
those basins separately, but the Com¬
merce Committee, after considering my
bill at the time they considered this
flood-control bill, did not report it, but
merely took this section and some other
provisions of it and incorporated them
in the pending flood-control bill. I
thought, and I still believe, that it is
advisable for the Congress to establish
an over-all policy dealing with all our
river and waterway developments. In
other words, if this would be a good pol¬
icy or a good program for the White and
Arkansas River Valleys, probably it
would be a good policy in connection
with improvements in other valleys
throughout the Nation.
However, if we are going finally to pro¬
ceed under a policy and program of es¬
tablishing separate authorities for each
valley, then, of course, this policy would
probably not fit into that scheme. Until,
however, we determine and enter upon
the course of developing our waterways
by the creation of separate authorities
for each particular drainage area, I
think it is well and advisable and neces¬
sary that the Congress itself establish a
policy which shall be pursued until that
time. I rather favor the policy expressed
in the pending flood-control bill and in
the bill which I introduced dealing with
the White and Arkansas River Valleys,
rather than the establishment of sepa¬
rate authorities.
Mr. President, I believe that everything
we need to accomplish can be accom¬
plished by the utilization of existing
agencies of Government without having
to create a new authority for each drain¬
age basin. There are certain functions of
different agencies already established by
the Congress which are indispensable to
the development of the Nation’s streams
and their proper utilization, and legisla¬
tion that declares and formulates a pol¬
icy such as the pending flood-control bill
does in section 1, and as was proposed
in the bill which I introduced dealing
with the White and Arkansas River
Basins, will enable and permit the de¬
velopment of these waterways.
Another reason, Mr. President, why
I think that such a policy is sound is
that I believe that the supervision of
navigation on our navigable streams
should remain under the War Depart-
rhent and under the supervision of the
Chief of Ai’my Engineers. It is further
my judgment, Mr. President, that all pro¬
jects on navigable streams, on all
streams where flood control is a vital
problem, should be constructed with a
view to controlling floods and in aid of
navigation. Those ought to be the pri¬
mary purposes of the construction. Par¬
ticularly is that true in the lower valleys
of the White and Arkansas Rivers. I
realize that upon the upper stretches of
the streams the great problem possibly of
the people living there is to get water for
irrigation purposes; but there is no con¬
flict of interest between the people on the
upper stretches of the streams who re¬
quire water or who need to utilize the
v/ater that can be made available for ir¬
rigation purposes, and the people down¬
stream, because the interest of those liv¬
ing down stream is to try to control the
floods, and certainly the water that is
stored in the reservoirs on the upper
stretches tends to relieve our burden and
problem in the lower valleys. I believe,
except for the projects which might be
constructed on the upper stretches of the
streams primarily for irrigation purposes
so as to impound water for that use, that
all projects constructed in the lower val¬
leys should be constructed primarily to
control the floods, and then for the
secondary purpose of generating power.
It matters not, Mr. President, how
much cheap power we are able to gen¬
erate and give to the people in a valley
by the construction and operation of a
dam, if we do not give them protection
from devastating floods we can easily see
all the fruits and benefits which come to
any section from cheap power washed
away and lost when the floods come. The
dams ought to be constructed primarily
for the purpose of flood control and navi¬
gation and secondarily for the purpose
of generating power.
I subscribe . wholeheartedly to the
policy set forth in the flood-control bill,
especially in section 1 thereof.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the senior Senator
from Louisiana a question. With refer¬
ence to the provision of the bill which
is now being discussed, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney] and a large
group of Senators have proposed amend¬
ments which include what might be a
supplemental statement of policy, and I
am going to ask that this matter go over
until the Senator from Wyoming can
be present, and perhaps some agree¬
ment can be reached as to the other
statement of policy.
Mr. OVERTON. Of course, I should
be very glad to accommodate the Sen¬
ator, but I should like to make some
progress. I do not think the amend¬
ments which the Senator from Wyoming
has in mind affect the matter before us
at all. They do not relate to it.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I do not believe they
conflict.
Mr. OVERTON. He does not under¬
take to amend the committee amend¬
ment.
Mr. MILLIKIN. No, but there is a
statement of policy to be included at an
appropriate place, which, if included at
an appropriate place, might supplement
the committee’s statement of policy.
Mr. OVERTON. Let us pass on the
pending amendment, and when the Sen¬
ator from Wyoming presents his amend¬
ment, we will act on it.
Mr. MILLIKIN. If I am not losing
any parliamentary position -
Mr. OVERTON. Not at all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ken- |
8365
tucky [Mr. Barkley] to the committee
amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I
should like to make an inquiry v/ith ref¬
erence to the first section. I cannot
understand the necessity for this lan¬
guage in the bill at all if it is not de¬
signed to create the notion in the coun¬
try that the enactment of the language
would preclude the possibility of a pro¬
gram like the T. V. A. program for the
various river basins of the country. I
cannot see any other purpose, because
we have been enacting this character of
legislation annually without provisions
of this character.
Mr. OVERTON. I think the Senator
is in error. We have had provisions in
pari materia, not in the exact language.
Mr. MURRAY. This is an attempt
through the language employed to create
the idea that this will provide for a
realization of other benefits to be derived
from such projects. Such language was
never included in any previous measures
which have been enacted, and the sole
and only purpose of it can be to create
the impression that there is no need for
a unified program of development of the
various river basins such as was provided
under the T. V. A., or under similar au¬
thorities which might be created in other
sections of the country. It is not rele¬
vant to the bill at all except for the pur¬
pose of establishing a legislative or moral
precedent that this legislation concludes
the subject, and makes it unnecessary
for the Congress again to consider the
proposition of a unified development of
these river basins. It is proposed that
it can all be done under the arrange¬
ment set forth here.
Mr. BARKLEY. I may say to the Sen¬
ator from Montana that the amendment
which I offered a moment ago, I think,
takes care of the situation by limiting
this declaration of policy to the projects
carried in the bill. That was my purpose
in offering it, and I understand there was
no objection to it.
Mr. MURRAY. I cannot understand
why it is necessary to have such provi¬
sions in the bill in any form.
Mr. BARKLEY. I argued that here at
some length a while ago. I expressed
myself as having on objection to having
a declaration of policy in regard to the
projects carried in the bill. My objection
was to the interpretation placed upon
the language by those who feared it was
an effort to place some moral restric¬
tions upon Congress, although Congress
could not be legally restrained as to what
it might do in the future. For that pur¬
pose I offered the amendment, and to it
there is no objection. I thought it had
been agreed to, but I am informed it has
not yet been agreed to.
Mr. MURRAY. For my part, I do not
see the need for this language in the
bill at all, and it has only one purpose,
that is, to attempt to preclude the coun¬
try from having developments such as
the T. V. A. in the various river basins
of the country.
Mr. OVERTON. Does the Senator con¬
tend that such a provision would be very
effective in hereafter and forever pre¬
venting all these developments?
No. ICO-
5
8366
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
Mr. MURRAY. No, but it is designed to
give an approval of the progranis which
have been carried out thus far, and
which have failed to accomplish any ma¬
terial results. It has been piecemeal
legislation. I find, too, that many of the
Members of Congress who serve on the
committees which control this kind of
legislation go before the people of their
various States claiming that they have
special advantages because of their posi¬
tions on these committees, and they
claim they get projects for their sections
of the country while other sections of the
country are unable to get them.
Mr. OVERTON. I hope the Senator
Is not referring to the chairman of the
subcommittee, to the Senator in charge
of the bill, who is myself, because if he
looks at the bill he will see that there
is scarcely anything in it for Louisiana,
as compared with other States.
Mr. MURRAY. I am not referring to
the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator was look¬
ing me squarely in the eye when he was
making the statement.
Mr. MURRAY. I could not look in any
other direction. I could not look at the
floor. I like to look at the distinguished
Senator frpm Louisiana when I am talk¬
ing to him. But it seems to me that the
record of the Congress in handling these
matters over the years has shown a
failure. The efforts have been piece¬
meal efforts to remedy the conditions,
and have failed to bring about any real
development of the resources or expan¬
sion of industry in the various river ba¬
sins of the country. The only way that
can be accomplished is by an authority
such as was set up under the T. V. A.
That would then give us a unified de¬
velopment of an entire basin, would give
us not only a program for flood control
and for irrigation and power, but would
also give us an opportunity to develop the
natural resources of the sections of the
country involved. This is going to be
especially important in the post-war pe¬
riod, when it becomes necessary for us to
bring about a huge expansion of indus¬
try in this country, and to provide homes
for thousands of new settlers in the west¬
ern section of the Nation, where these
projects can be carried out.
It seems to me this language shovifd
be entirely eliminated from the bill so
as to prevent any notion that the Con¬
gress is approving the record that has
been made in carrying out these proj¬
ects in various sections of the country.
I am opposed to this first section in its
entirety.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I intend to vote against the amend¬
ment of the Senator from Kentucky, al¬
though I do not intend to make a fight
about it, because I do not think it
amounts to anything.
The language of the committee
amendment, of course, does not attempt
to bind any future Congress. Everyone
who knows anything knows that one
Congress cannot bind another, and that
a Congress today cannot bind its own
action a week later. I shall vote against
the amendment because it is simply in¬
tended to curry favor with a couple of
editorial writers on the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch and the St. Louis Star-Times.
Mr. Ralph Coghlan, principal editorial
writer on the Post-Dispatch, a few
months ago happened to read Dave
Lilienthal’s book on the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and he immediately commit¬
ted the Post-Dispatch to a very enthusi¬
astic program for a Missouri Valley Au¬
thority. He had previously committed
the Post-Dispatch in the strongest terms
in opposition to the President’s foreign
policy before Pearl Harbor and then done
a complete about face on the return from
Canada of Mr. Joseph Pulitzer, the owner
of the paper. The last time I saw
Coghlan was at a dinner given Colonel
Lindberg on the occasion of his speaking
in St. Louis. Shortly after that, I under¬
stand, in some manner Mrs. Coghlan,
Ralph Coghlan’s wife, who was also an
editorial writer on the Post-Dispatch,
was permitted to fly over the T. V. A. in
a Government plane and at public ex¬
pense, and they began to write articles
about the T. V. A., and to suggest that
the vast Missouri River Valley should be
subjected to the same treatment the
Tennessee Valley had received.
Of course the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
is a piratical craft, but it is a man o’ war.
The St. Louis Star-Times always comes
in a couple of weeks later as a rowboat
in the wake of the piratical craft of the
Post-Dispatch. If you want to know
what will be in the Star-Times tomorrow
all you have to do is to read the Post-
Dispatch of 2 weeks ago. So, of course,
shortly after Mr. Coghlan had written his
editorial, and his wife had flown over the
Tennessee Valley in a Government plane,
the Star-'Times came along to the same
effect.
Mr. Coghlan is the fellow who raised
the question as to whether we were at¬
tempting to bind a future Congress,
which, if he had been a lawyer he would
have knov/n would have been Impossible
to happen. The Senator from Kentucky,
able lawyer and jurist that he is, cer¬
tainly knows that. ’This amendment is
simply, in my opinion, a cheap catering
to two cheap editorial writers on the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch and the St. Louis
Star-’Times, and for that reason, while I
have no objection to it and know that it
is entirely innocuous and does not in the
slightest degree change the effect of the
committee amendment, I intend to vote
against it. It is only an exception with¬
out meaning of an obvious constitutional
fact that one Congress cannot bind an¬
other one.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I wish
simply to state in reply to the Senator
from Missouri that it is a matter of in¬
difference to me as to how cheap he
thinks my performance may be here in
offering the amendment. Long before I
ever heard of any amendment or any
editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, I
was opposed to the Congress attempting
to create the impression that it was hold¬
ing out the hope that it might bind
future Congresses by the continuation of
a policy which ought to be limited to a
provision carried in a bill.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, if the Senator will permit me, the
Senator has supported many measui’es
on this floor which, without attempting
to bind any future Congresses, declared
a policy of Congress for the guidance of
executive bureaus which would be in ef¬
fect until such a time as the Congress
saw fit to change the policy. That is all
this amendment attempts to do.
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not claim to be
as profound a constitutional lawyer as
the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
from Kentucky is an able constitutional
lawyer.
Mr. BARKLEY. But even I know that
one Congress cannot bind another Con¬
gress. I know that one Congress ought
not to create the impression that it is
trying to bind another Congress. That
is what my amendment tries to save this
proposal from.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Then I think
we ought to write into the bill an amend¬
ment that we should not abolish the
Presidency or the House of Representa¬
tives or any other constitutional func-
tidn.
Mr. BARKLEY. Of course, the Sen¬
ator can carry the suggestion for amend¬
ment ad nauseam and ad libitum and ad
infinitum if he wishes to.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It seems to
me no example I could give could be more
ridiculous.
Mr. BARKLEY. The amendment I
offer is no more ridiculous than the effort
made by the bill to create the impression
that we are trying to settle the policy of
Congress for all time.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Of course,
that is not intended to be done.
Mr. BARKLEY. I am not so certain
that the language here is not an attempt
to settle a permanent policy on the part
of Congress, otherwise why did not the
committee write in the language that is
now agreed to by the committee: that it
shall only have effect upon the projects
carried in this bill?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I have seen the Senator from Ken¬
tucky on at least 40 different occasions
since the present administration came
into power in 1932, stand on this floor
and defend declarations of policy much
more binding and much more stringent
than anything proposed in this bill. It
just so happens that the Senator has
read the editorial in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, which he has just put into the
Record, and was actuated to offer this
amendment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not know any¬
thing about the motives which inspired
the editorial carried in the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. I do not know whether
the editorial was a cheap one, or wheth¬
er the editors are cheap editors. I do
not know anything about the character
of the people who write these editorial.^
I do not have the honor or privilege of
their acquaintance. But long before I
ever saw this editorial, in connection
with legislation of this kind dealing with
rivers and harbors and the permanent
improvement of our resources, I objected
to one Congress attempting to bind an¬
other Congress by a declaration of policy,
or, even though it could not do it, at
least endeavor to have some moral effect
upon the succeeding Congress.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Did the Sen¬
ator protest against the declaration of
policy which was the preamble to the act
creating the P. W. A.?
Mr. BARKLEY. No; I do not suppose
I did, and it would not have anything to
do with the matter now before us
whether I did or did not.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Very well.
The Senator has defended on this floor
many declarations of policy by Congress.
Mr. BARKLEY. That was a declara¬
tion of policy dealing with a temporary
unemployment condition, and we did un¬
dertake to establish a policy and declare
a policy of giving men work in a great
depression. That is quite a different
thing from trying to bind future Con¬
gresses with respect to the permanent
improvement of our natural resources.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President,
since the section of the bill now under
discussion was taken from a bill which
I introduced dealing w'ith the Arkansas
and White River Basins in which the
same identical policy was set out, I want
the record to show that I am opposed to
the amendment offered by the senior
Senator from Kentucky. Of course,
there is no attempt here to do the im¬
possible. We all know, and it is agreed
by everyone, that the action taken here
today in this legislation cannot bind a
future Congress. But I submit that if
this is a good policy for the pending bill
and the projects which are authorized
therein, if it is good for these projects
and for this measure, then it is good for
all projects heretofore authorized by the
Congress with reference to which no
previous legislative policy has been es¬
tablished.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President -
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Does the Senator from Arkansas
yield to the Senator from Florida?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. PEPPER. In view of the fact that
the Senator was apparently the author
of the prototype of this amendment, I
should like to know what in the mipd of
the author is the intention or implica¬
tion of this language. In what respect
does it change the policy which we have
followed in the past?
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, in
answer to the Senator from Florida I will
say that when I drafted the bill from
which this section was taken I was not
undertaking to formulate or to establish
a policy for the Nation as such. I was
dealing primarily with river basins that
my people are vitally interested in, and in
the absence of a valley authority having
been established to deal with the project
in those river basins, the White and
Arkansas, in order to coordinate the
different projects that are now being con¬
structed in those valleys, and those that
have heretofore been authorized, and
such as may be hereafter authorized, I
was trying to establish a definite policy
with respect to those projects in those
two river basins. I was not undertaking
to fix one for the Nation. I do think it
would be good until such time as the
Congress may decide that it prefers to
proceed by the establishment of sepa¬
rate authorities for each drainage basin.
In other words, as i understand it now
we have no definite fixed policy in many I
respects. For instance, take the power
generated on dams in my section — and
we have one just about completed now,
the Norfolk Dam, There is no authority,
there is no policy, with reference to that
power except a directive or an Executive
order from the President which deals
with it during the emergency period
only. When that power becomes avail¬
able the Southwest, Power Authority,
which has jurisdiction of it by reason of
the Executive order, is unable to make
contracts for the power or make any dis¬
position of it for a period of time beyond
6 months after the end of the war. And
therefore looking to the development of
our waterways I was undertaking, when
I drafted the bill, to fix a policy by legis¬
lation under which we could operate
which would enable those in authority to
act, and in the bill which I introduced I
placed the power under the Secretary of
the Interior for his disposal just as the
President had done by Executive order.
But it would enable them to make con¬
tracts beyond the end of the war. In
the absence of a legislative policy, I un¬
dertook to deal with the question of fixing
a policy by legislation until such time as
the Congress, if it should ever wish to
change it, might make a change. Ap¬
parently the Commerce Committee sim¬
ply took that section of the bill which I
had introduced for the White and Arkan¬
sas River Valleys and incorporated it in
this general flood control bill, to serve as
a declaration of policy until such time as
Congress might wish to legislate further.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. PEPPER. As I understand, the
language was intended to mean only that
the policy of universality should apply
until Congress might decide to set up a
governing authority for a particular area.
Mr. McClellan. Absolutely. In
other words, it is an interim provision.
If Congress should finally enter upon the
program of establishing regional au¬
thorities or valley authoi’ities as a gen¬
eral program for the development of our
waterways, when such authorities are
established these policies would be abro¬
gated, or merged into the new procedure.
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Does the Senator from Arkansas
yield to the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. CHANDLER. As I read the dec¬
laration in the bill. It simply states that
it is the purpose of the act to establish
a definite policy of making use of exist¬
ing Federal agencies for the construction
and operation of such works. In the fu¬
ture would not anyone undertaking to
establish some authority be faced di¬
rectly with an expressed intention of
Congress, unless it were changed, to the
effect that it is the purpose to be guided
by this provision until some Congress
changes it?
Mr, McClellan. That is correct,
Mr. CHANDLER. In the future, if the
Senator from Montana [Mr. Murray],
for example, should wish to establish a
Missouri Valley Authority, h« would be
8367
faced with the declaration of this Con¬
gress that It wishes to handle the pro¬
gram through existing agencies. He
might be able to overcome that handi¬
cap, but the burden would be distinctly
upon him.
I do not know what will happen to the
amendment offered by my colleague; but
if that is the burden which is to be im¬
posed upon anyone in the future — and
I so conceive it — I intend at the proper
time to move to strike the entire section,
because it is meaningless. We all agree
that we cannot even bind this Congress
for the remainder' of the session. We
cannot bind the next Congress. I do not
intend to be a party to trying to bind this
Congress or any future Congress. I do
not wish to place a burden upon anyone
who may in the future wish to establish
some authority.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Chandler] states exactly
the position which I sought to state a
few moments ago. There should be no
need for such a provision in this bill,
unless it is intended to declare a policy
which is to affect the development of
river basins in the future. The record
in the case shows that such policies have
been a failure in the past and will con¬
tinue to be a failure in the future. I do
not need to depend upon newspapers
from St. Louis to tell me that. We know
it from our actual experience in the West.
I know that during all the years while
this work has been going on, the results
which have been accomplished have been
very poor.
I have before me an editorial from the
New York Times, which I should like to
submit for the Record at this point in my
statement. It indicates the great need
for unified development of river basins,
and the possibilities which might flow
from such development. I ask unani¬
mous consent that an editorial entitled
“Future of the Northwest” published in
the New York Times of July 16, 1944, be
printed in the Record at this point as a
part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
FUTURE OF THE NORTHWEST
Like the rest of the country, the Pacific
Northwest is booming, and It is booming, for
one reason, because of Columbia River elec¬
tric power. The region has one-third of the
Nation’s aluminum capacity. It is producing
magnesium, ferro-alloy?, calcium carbide,
chlorates, metallurgical coke, zinc, copper,
mercury, tungsten, antimony. Much lumber
comes from its forests, and much grain and
fruit from its farms and ranches. But the
development is lopsided because it has thus
far met the exigencies of war primarily. No
region in the country has such a varied
climate and such an agricultural and indus¬
trial future. If the most is to be made of
such possibilities, if the expected post-war
slump is to be largely averted, an entirely
new administrative structure is needed — a
structure clothed with such authority that it
will not merely supply electric energy to fac¬
tories and homes but help knit the Pa^o
Northwest into an economic fabric in accord¬
ance with far-reaching plans already laid.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 21
8368
An example of what can be done is pre¬
sented by the Tennessee Valley Authority,
which has such broad powers that it can carry
out a flood-control program, aid navigation,
distribute power to factories and households,
develop parks for recreation, conserve soil,
reclaim land, and engage in about any other
activity that does not properly belong to pri¬
vate enterprise. In the Columbia Valley, by
contrast, half a dozen separate agencies and
bureaus are trying to perform a similar task.
Some, like the Bonneville Administration and
the Reclamation Service, are part of the De¬
partment of the Interior; some fall in the
Jurisdiction of the Departments of War and
Agriculture; others are State bodies.
The Pacific Northwest has resources far
richer than those of the Tennessee Valley.
Its industrial and agricultural activities are
not sufficiently diversified and may decline
after the war. Its population is relatively
smaller to the square mile than that of the
Tennessee Valley and anything but perma¬
nent in these war days. Markets are not
near at hand. There is no difficulty about
selling Columbia River power. The question
is how it can be sold to the greatest advan¬
tage to selected industries and to farmers
who must learn what the region needs. For
all these reasons the Bonneville Administra¬
tion should have the corporation form of
administration which has been so successful
In the Tennessee Valley, so that it may
change its policies to meet new social needs.
It should conduct more practical research to
make the most of land, water, mineral re¬
sources, and forests.
This does not mean that States and local
communities must relinquish all their rights,
but it does mean that they will have to give
up claims for individual consideration. As
It Is, the Bonneville Administration has the
necessary leaders, but they are hampered be¬
cause they must take orders from Washing¬
ton and at the same time yield to local am¬
bition. -This is the time to reorganize the
administration now charged with making
the most of Columbia River power. If Con¬
gress waits until the war is over and the
workers in the shipyards and Industrial
plants migrate, years may elapse before the
Pacific Northwest can march forward with
the certainty of reaching its goal.
Mr. MURRAY. I also ask that, fol¬
lowing my remarks, there be printed in
the Record a brief summary of a state¬
ment which I have prepared.
There being no objection, the summary
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
The Omaha Agreement of the Army Engi¬
neers AND THE Bureau of Reclamation
The so-called Omaha agreement between
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army
engineers is strictly an engineering agree¬
ment providing the basis for comprehensive
and Integrated development of the Missouri
River system only as regards structures to be
built and the capacity of the reservoirs,
thereby reconciling the differences between
the Army’s plan and the Bureau’s plan. This
agreement resulted from demands of^ the
Congress, the Bureau of the Budget in behalf
of the President, and the State Governors’
resolutions for presentation of an agreed
plan after the Bureau of Reclamation had
opposed the authorization of the so-called
Pick plan of the Army engineers which fie
Bureau said would foreclose certain phases
of beneficial development of the valley. The
basis of the engineering agreement, which
has been called the Omaha agreement, is that
upstream structures assure certain use of the
waters for Irrigation and power and that a
certain amount of reservoir space provide for
protection against flood control and a certain
(.mount of water be available for downstream
iifevigatlon.
Close observers have noted that the Army’s
willingness to consider such a compromise
Increased after opposition by the Bureau of
Reclamation before the Senate to the Pick
plan and increased again to such a point that
a compromise was possible following the in¬
troduction of the Murray blU for the estab¬
lishment of a Missouri Valley Authority and
similar bills which were given wide support.
Tlie President’s message endorsing the prin¬
ciple of an authority for the basin preceded
the Omaha agreement by only a few weeks.
DOES NOT FORECLOSE THE MISSOURI VALLEY
AUTHORITY
The so-called Omaha agreement does not
foreclose the establishment of a Missouri
Valley Authority nor does it solve a great
number of questions which might be solved
by such an authority. While the Omaha
agreement provides for comprehensive de¬
velopment of the river system in its entirety,
it gives consideration largely to irrigation,
power, flood control, and navigation princi¬
pally. It does not, of course, provide for a
singly unified administration of the compre¬
hensive development. The Bureau of Recla¬
mation is on record in testimony before the
Senate Commerce Committee and in public
statements to the effect that this plan in no
way forecloses a single agency administering
the development of the whole river. The
agreement, however, is intended to end or
reduce conflict between the various multiple
Interests of the Department of the Interior
in the valley and the flood-control and navi¬
gation interests of the War Departrrtent. It
is believed that the development contem¬
plated in the so-called Omaha agreement
would be a necessary part, but not all, of any
development undertaken were the Congress
to provide a single authority to administer
the resources of the valley.
PENDING RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD-
CONTROL BILLS
There are pending before the Senate omni¬
bus rivers and harbors and flood-control bills.
Both of these measures embrace a wide va¬
riety of development in no way related to
the Missouri Valley, as well as certain items
that are related to the valley. These two
measures are objectionable on several scores
to the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation both as to the Mis¬
souri River items and the other items.
Broadly speaking, the Department of the In¬
terior does not think that they provide for
and protect fully the programs of orderly.
Integrated resource development with which
the Department is concerned. Included in
the non-Missouri Valley items in both these
twin measures on flood control and rivers
and harbors are a number of developments
in various other areas for which the President
has indicated a desire for authority bills to
provide for unified basin-wide administra¬
tion. It is the opinion of the Department
of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion that more adequate consideration to the
needs of the affected areas can be given by
the Congress if action on these omnibus
measures is deferred until the new Congress
is in session.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, In
answer to both the Senator from Ken¬
tucky and the Senator from Montana,
let me say that certainly until some leg¬
islation of this character Is enacted, we
shall be proceeding with the authoriza¬
tion and construction of many valuable
projects without a declaration of policy
by law. Our policy at present is being
fixed by Executive order. As the Sena-
ator from Montana says, that is a pretty
weak way to do It. Possibly we are not
getting the maximum results. Possibly
valley authorities would be a better
method of procedure. I do not know.
But certainly until such time as the
Congress acts and creates the authori¬
ties. there ought to be a legislative policy
with respect to the procedure. This may
be a weak policy, but certainly we have
none now established by the Congress.
Therefore we ought to act so as to take
care of the interim period. Then if we
find that this policy is not adequate,
and the Congress wishes to change it,
I do not see that any burden would be
placed upon any one in changing the
policy as we develop the authority pro¬
gram, if that is the way we later decide
to pursue the development. If we de¬
cide that that is the better course to
attain our objectives, namely, the de¬
velopment and utilization of our water
resources, it can be done without any
violence whatever. The proposed policy
would do no violence to the suggested
program, so long as the authorities are
not in existence.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
. Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It seems to
me that in this debate it has been over¬
looked to a very large extent that this
is a flood-control bill, not a navigation
bill, not a river and harbor bill, not a
power bill. It is a flood-control bill; and
the question of flood control, not in Mon¬
tana, but in the lower region of the
Missouri River and of the Mississippi
River, is the most acute problem we have
to face. It seems to me that it is com¬
pletely overlooked that the whole theory
of Federal responsibility and Federal
action in flood control is of comparatively
recent origin. It was only after the
great floods of 1928 and 1929 that Fed¬
eral responsibility for flood control was
ever assumed, and then only as to the
main stem of the Mississippi River, Lake
Okeechobee in Florida, and the Sacra¬
mento River in California. It has only
been since I have been a Member of the
Senate, and since the Senator from
Louisiana, who is in charge of the bill,
has been a Member of the Senate, that
there has been established the principle
of Federal responsibility for flood control
on the tributaries as well as the main
stems of the great rivers. That has
.necessarily been a piecemeal business.
We have made an advance from one stage
to another. Therefore, it has been
largely a matter of specific authorizations
by Congress in each particular bill, and
a veiy large measure of discretion has
been left to Government agencies.
The pending committee amendment,
adopted from the bill of the Senator from
Arkansas, represents nothing more than
an effort to formulate a general policy
as the policy to be pursued by executive
agencies in progressive flood -control
measures, imtil such time as the Con¬
gress may see fit to change the policy.
If the Congress wishes to establish a
Missouri Valley Authority, wliich I think
is preposterous, there is nothing to pre¬
vent Congress from doing so. But until
Congress sees fit to do so, all that it Is
proposed to do by this amendment, which
is adopted from the measure introduced
by the Senator from Arkansas, is to
establish a general rule for guidance in
matters of flood control, in a field which
has only recently; within the service of
a great many Members of the Senate,
1944
83G9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
been assumed by the Federal Govern¬
ment.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, the
Senator from Missouri has well stated the
position of the proponents of the amend¬
ment. The thing which prompted me to
introduce such a measure was the fact
that the development of the Arkansas
and the White River Valleys was then
and is now under way. Projects are
under construction, and others are au¬
thorized, awaiting the end of the war,
when materials can be made available.
We are proceeding with this construction
without a definite legislative policy.
There should be something to guide us,
something to point out what our objec¬
tives are, and to point out the manner in
which we intend to achieve them.
Now I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, some¬
time earlier this afternoon, before a num¬
ber of the Senators who now are discuss¬
ing the matter were in the Chamber, a
statement was made on behalf of the
subcommittee by both the chairman of
the subcommittee and myself as a mem¬
ber of it. That statement emphasized
the point which the Senator from Arkan¬
sas is now making. The Senator from
Arkansas introduced a statement of
policy in his bill. That statement of
policy, which fitted well into the general
bill, has been incorporated in the pending
bill.
To this statement of policy I under¬
stand that the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. Barkley] is requesting the adoption
of an amendment providing merely for
the insertion of the words “provided for
in this act.’’ This is to make the section
refer expressly and only to the improve¬
ments provided for in this act. It seems
to me that what he has in mind is that,
first of all, the Congress cannot now
establish a policy which will bind future
Congresses, and that, furthermore, this
bill does not prohibit the setting up of
new agencies. The bill does, however,
contain a statement that we wish to make
all necessary improvements in America,
with the least possible waste of mechan¬
ics of government in doing so.
In the pending bill we have attempted
to give an illustration of how to accom¬
plish a considerable amount of our objec¬
tive with existing agencies. We do not
wish to have the bill used or cited in an
executive decree or executive order or in
any kind of directive as authority for the
establishment of a new authority to
manage the things which we have said
can be managed by existing authorities
as provided for in the bill.
'Therefore, I think it is important for
us to emphasize the fact that we think
the work can be done by existing agen¬
cies, that we so declare, and that we do
not leave the bill as merely authorizing
independent projects under no general
policy. W’e should declare that it is our
policy to use and coordinate the existing
agencies. Such a declaration will make
it impossible for this bill to be cited as
authority for doing such things in some
other way. If the Congress later de¬
sires to have the work done in some other
way, that will be all right. I think the
pending bill is an example of how to do
it under existing authority, and I think
it highly important to make that state¬
ment of policy in the opening paragraph
of the bill.
Mr. McClellan. By doing “so. Con¬
gress would retain the power of saying
how it should be done.
Mr. President, with respect to the
amendment of the Senator 'from Ken¬
tucky, let me say that his amendment
would simply restrict the application of
this policy to the projects authorized
under the pending bill. In the pending
bill we are authorizing projects on
streams which are more or less inter¬
related to other projects already author¬
ized. It seems to me that no legislative
policy along that line has been declared
as to them at all. They are subject to
any sort of Executive order with refer¬
ence to policy or other matters. But if
we adopt the amendment proposed by
the Senator from Kentucky, we say that
this policy will apply only to the projects
covered under the pending bill. And
with respect to other projects heretofore
authorized on the same streams, there is
no legislative policy as to them. There¬
fore, it seems to me that either the whole
committee amendment should be strick¬
en from the bill — I say that in all sin¬
cerity — or it should be retained and
adopted just as it is, whichever the Con¬
gress wishes to do. If we strike out all
of it, then we have no legislative policy,
and will continue to proceed as hereto¬
fore without any adequate legislative
policy or direction. If we retain the
committee amendment, then Congress
has fixed the policy which will control
until such time as it may be changed.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield first to the
Senator from Montana, who has been on
his feet for some time.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, I wish
to call attention to the fact that the
Senator from Missouri stated a moment
ago that the pending bill is a flood-con¬
trol bill. While it is true that it is a
flood-control bill, we must bear in mind
that its provisions reach much further
than do the provisions of a mere flood-
control bill, because in the pending bill
an effort is made to lay down a policy not
only as to flood control but with respect
to the development of power, the sale of
power, irrigation, and reclamation.
While it is true that the next Congress or
even the present Congress can change
such a policy, in that connection I have
a distinct recollection regarding legisla¬
tion which developed with reference to
the Port Peck Dam. Because of the fact
that the War Department desired to have
a certain amendment adopted, and it was
adopted, I was confronted with the prop¬
osition that a policy with reference to the
Fort Peck Dam had been laid down by
the War Department, even though it was
never intended as a policy of the admin¬
istration when the legislation was en¬
acted. But that was constantly thrown
in my teeth by the Senator from Louisi¬
ana and the Senator from Missouri -
Mr, OVERTON. Oh, no, Mr. Presi¬
dent; the Senator is in error about that.
Mr. WHEELER, I do not think I am
in error about it.
Mr. OVERTON. I will make my state¬
ment later, but I should like to say now
that what I said to the Senator was that
the undertaking was authorized as a nav¬
igation and irrigation project. That is
what I said, and that is all I said. I did
not say that future Congresses could not
change it.
Mr. WHEELER. Of course, the Sena¬
tor did not say so.
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly I did not.
The Senator from Montana took the po¬
sition that the undertaking was an irri¬
gation project.
Mr. WHEELER. Oh, no, Mr. Presi¬
dent: the Senator is entirely mistaken
about that. I did not take the position
that it was an irrigation project.
Mr. OVERTON. I so understood.
Mr. WHEELER. I took the position
that it was a flood-control, navigation,
and irrigation project.
Mr. OVERTON. Yes; but the Senator
said that irrigation was transcendental.
Mr. WHEELER. Oh, no ; the Senator is
mistaken.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well. Then we
are both agreed that it was a navigation
project. And that is what it is today.
Mr. WHEELER. That is correct —
navigation, irrigation, and flood control.
Mr. OVERTON. And power.
Mr. WHEELER. There can be no
question about that now. It so happens
that I was the Senator who talked first
to the President about it, and I know
what was in his mind.
Mr. OVERTON. I do not know what
the President said, but I know what Con¬
gress said when it authorized it.
Mr. WHEELER. But that was after
the project had been started. It had
been started and projected under the
Public Works Administration. Then,
after it had been commenced, in order to
obtain a further appropriation, in addi¬
tion to the W. P. A. funds, to be used to
complete it, the amendment to which I
have referred was suggested. It never
for 1 second occurred to me or to any¬
one else that the amendment would be
cited as a declaration of policy, and that
the statement would be made that the
projeet was merely for flood control or
for navigation, as the Senator and as
members of his committee have con¬
tended.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
Senator is in error. Neither the War De¬
partment nor I so contended.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, I
think I have the floor; the Senator from
Arkansas yielded to me.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, as I
just said, neither the War Department
nor I ever made such a contention. He
said it was for all those purposes. That
testimony is contained in the hearings.
Mr. WHEELER. I also call attention
to the fact that a policy for reclamation,
a policy for power, and a policy for the
sale of power are being inserted in the
pending bill. It provides specifically that
power which happens to be generated at
such projects cannot be sold except at
wholesale. It can be sold at wholesale.
A reclamation project can grow out of
this project, provided the Secretary of
War -
8370
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 21
Mr. McClellan. Mr. president, that
provision is in another section of the bill.
It is not contained in this section of the
bill.
Mr. WHEELER. Yes; but that is the
policy which is being laid down in the
bill. If the project can be used for ir¬
rigation and reclamation, the Secretary
of the Interior will be able to go to the
Secretary of War, with his hat in his
hand, and if the Secretary of War says
that the project can be used for irriga¬
tion and that it is proper for irrigation,
then it will be agreed that some of the
water can be used for irrigation and
reclamation, provided, of course, that
they come back to Congress, and pro¬
vided, of course, that the persons con¬
cerned can afford to pay for it, and pro¬
vided, of course, something else.
I submit that when we lay down a
policy of that kind, everyone who comes
to Congress in the future with an ap¬
plication for a reclamation project or for
some similar project will be confronted
with this policy, as laid down by the Con¬
gress of the United States, and will be
told that this is the definite policy which
should be followed.
I am interested In flood control proj¬
ects being favorably considered, because
floods occur in my State. Perhaps they
are not so devastating as the floods which
occur in Missouri, but, nevertheless, we
have had some devastating floods in
Montana. When, however, it is proposed
to regulate irrigation, navigation, and
reclamation in Montana, I am opposed
to that being done without at least cer¬
tain restrictions. I am interested in nav¬
igation, and I have helped in every way
in which I could in the promotion of nav¬
igation, but I do not want those who are
Interc ted in navigation to come into my
State and tell us how our reclamation is
to be regulated, or how the sale of power
is to be regulated. It seems to me that
that is something which should not be
laid down as a national policy in this
kind of bill. It should be treated as a
separate problem.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, the
Senator from Montana is far better in¬
formed than I with respect to reclama¬
tion and irrigation projects, and the need
of water and its uses in the State of Mon¬
tana. Neither by the section under dis¬
cussion nor by any other do I wish to do
any violence to the State of Montana or
any other State which needs and depends
on irrigation projects. But with respect
to a policy as to power, I believe that it
should be the same throughout the Na¬
tion. I may be wrong about it. Today the
power generated from the dams to which
reference has been made is subject to
Executive order. If we are to develop our
waterways, I believe that the time has
come for Congress to say what the policy
Is to be. If the policy is a wrong one, we
should change it. But Congress should
assume responsibility for it, and then we
can move ahead and make progress.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Pi’esident, I agree
with the Senator from Arkansas. We
should have a policy for power. It should
not be left to the whim of any one of the
executive branches of the Government. I
am also in thorough accord with the sug¬
gestion that we should have a policy with
reference to flood control, and that it
should not be left to the whim of any ex¬
ecutive department, whether it be the
War Department, the Interior Depart¬
ment, or any other department. The
same thii?| is true with regard to recla¬
mation.
What I am objecting to, however, is the
claim that we should establish a policy
with reference to reclamation or power
■ in a flood-control bill. It seems to me
that sufficient opportunity is not given us
to give the matter the consideration
which some of us believe it should have.
I may be in error, and I hope the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana will correct me if I
am, but because of a speech which he
made in Louisiana the people in the
Northwest were certainly stirred up. He
talked about certain uses of the waters
which should come first, and stated that
irrigation should come next.
Mr. OVERTON. Who said that? Was
the Senator present?
Mr. WtlEELER. When we come to the
question of what is most important in
this country -
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President -
Mr. WHEELER. Allow me to finish my
statement and then I will yield.
When we come to the question of what
is most important for the masses of the
people of this country, whether it be to
allow a little more water to go down the
Missouri River for the Standard Oil Co,
and a few other big companies which op¬
erate and put the money in their pockets,
or to furnish homes for the soldiers who
will come back and need homes to live in,
I shall want to discuss the problem at
some length on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. McClellan. I do not know
whether the Senator meant any impli¬
cation in his remark about the Standard
Oil Co.
Mr. WHEELER. No. I read the testi¬
mony before the committee. This is
what happened with reference to irri¬
gation; When the Standard Oil Co. rep¬
resentative from Kentucky was testify¬
ing, he stated that the money which the
company had made was not passed on to
the consumer, but that it was put into
the pockets of the company and never
passed on to the consumer in any in¬
stance. If the Senator will check up on
the oil shipped up the Mississippi River,
on the lumber which goes down the river,
and on the cement which goes up, he
will find that not a single solitary nickel
or dime was passed on to the consuming
public of this country.
Mr. McClellan. The people of the
State of Montana may need water for
irrigation and agricultural purposes. In
our State we have to keep the water off
our lands. There is a line somewhere
between Montana and Arkansas where
our rights will not conflict, and where
the people of the State of Montana may
have irrigation and we of Arkansas may
restrain the flood waters. That is what
I hope to see done. I want to see dams
built primarily for flood control. I am
speaking of projects farther down the
stream. I am sure they would not con¬
flict in any way with the program which
the Senator desires to see adopted for
his State.
The Senator representing Montana,
and I, in my humble effort to represent
Arkansas, should have sufficient intelli¬
gence to get together on this matter and
quit quarreling about iL The Senate
should be able to establish a national
policy which will enable us to construct
the proposed projects, and build up our
country.
Mr. WHEELER. I agree with the Sen¬
ator from Arkansas.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Pi'esi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I agree en¬
tirely with what the Senator from
Arkansas has said. But in view of what
the Senator from Montana has said
about the character of the pending bill,
I wish to call attention to the fact that
the bill originally started as a strictly
flood-control measure, and that the
whole question of irrigation and reclama¬
tion was injected into the measure en¬
tirely improperly and irrelevantly, in my
opinion, by an amendment introduced by
the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Ma¬
honey], joined in by numerous Senators
from other irrigation States. They un¬
dertook to establish an absolute priority
in futurity, not only as to the use of
water for existing irrigation projects, but
in all futurity for any project which
they might, devise, including one which
would extend into Canada and divert
water from the Missouri Basin into an
entirely different watershed.
The controversy concerning that mat¬
ter was waged not by the people who
are interested in flood control, but by
Senators who went before the committee,
sat with the committee, and, through
the courtesy of the committee, proceeded
to examine, cross-examine, and browbeat
witnesses when they could do so. They
were not interested in the slightest de¬
gree in flood control, but were interested
in establishing a priority for all the
future with regard to all water which
might fall on the Missouri watershed.
Mr. President, I believe it is unfair
for the Senator from Montana, who is
my very dear friend, to say at this time
that the bill is not a strictly flood-con¬
trol bill because the provisions which
have to do with anything else than flood
control were not inserted by those who
were interested in flood control, but were ■
inserted in the committee in an effort
to compromise with and satisfy the people
who are interested in power, irrigation,
reclamation, and other subjects.
This controversy originally took place,
not on the flood-control bill, but on the
river and harbor bill, where it certainly
had no place whatever. I repeat, those
who were interested in navigation and
those who were interested in flood con¬
trol were not responsible for injecting
extraneous issues into those two
measures.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President -
Mr. McClellan. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Kentucky.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, awhile
ago I asked the Senator to yield to
me merely to call attention to the fact
that Congress has not been devoid of
a policy with respect to the improvement
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
of rivers and harbors, nor as to flood con¬
trol. There has not been a river and
harbor bill passed, as I recall, certainly
since I have been a Member of Con¬
gress, which did not carry the specific
provision that the improvements carried
in the bill should be handled by the Sec¬
retary of War through the Chief of Engi¬
neers. That has always been the policy
of Congress, that river and harbor im¬
provements should be carried on through
the Corps of Engineers.
The Flood Control Act of 1936 enun¬
ciated the policy that the improvements
for flood control should be under the di¬
rection of the Seci’etary of War, through
the Chief of Engineers, subject to the
right of the President to allocate priori¬
ties for emergency flood-control projects.
In other word^ he had the right, under
the act of 1936 to designate which proj¬
ects he thought were most emergent, be¬
cause they could not all be carried on
at the same time, they could not be
begun at the same time.' But we have
had that policy with respect to flood con¬
trol, and that is still the law, and it is
still the law and we had the same policy
with respect to the improvement of
rivers and harbors. Therefore I do not
agree with the observation of the Sena¬
tor from Arkansas that we have never
had any policy with regard to these im¬
provements. We have had a policy.
Inasmuch as it has been the policy,
both as to river and harbor improve¬
ments and flood control, that these proj¬
ects be carried on under the diretifions
of the Secretary of War through the
Chief of Engineers, it seems to me un¬
necessary in this bill to reiterate that
policy. If it is to be limited to the
matters carried in the bill or covered by
the policy heretofore adopted, I cannot
see any reason for writing in a new
policy, which does not contemplate any¬
thing else. If it contemplates something
beyond river and harbor improvements
and beyond flood control, we should
know what it is.
It is for that reason that I offered the
amendment to the language under con¬
sideration, limiting the policy to the
projects carried in the bill, which has al¬
ways been done heretofore when Con¬
gress has passed any sort of flood-control
or river and harbor improvement bill, to
be administered under the Chief of
Engineers, or the Secretary of War
through the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. McClellan, win the senator
enlighten me as to what, under existing
law, is the policy established by Congress
with reference to the disposition and
handling of power derived from these
projects?
Mr. BARKLEY. The Senator would
require me, in answer to that question, to
coordinate from memory the provisions
of the Federal Power Act. Many years
ago we passed the Federal Power Act,
setting up the Federal Power Commis¬
sion, which was instructed, under the
law, to cooperate with and to make use
of the Corps of Engineers in the con¬
struction of dams for power purposes. I
could not from memory give all the pro¬
visions of the Power Act, but there is
nothing inconsistent between the Federal
Power Act and the various annual ap¬
propriations by Congress for the Im¬
provement of rivers and harbors, or even
flood control.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Let me ask the
Senator if it is not true that when proj¬
ects are constructed under existing
flood-control acts, multiple-purpose
projects, from which electricity is gen¬
erated, there is no provision in the gen¬
eral flood-control acts with respect to the
sale ond distribution of the power, but it
is now being handled by Executive order.
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not think the
amendment we have under discussion
now has any relationship to the question
of the disposition of power. The amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey] today dealt with
that subject, and this amendment, at¬
tempting to establish a policy, it seems to
me, deals more with the inauguration and
construction of the projects than the
final disposition of . power that may be
created under them.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Arkansas yield?
Mr. McClellan. I am about to yield
the floor.
Mr . MAYBANK. I wish to ask the
Senator from Kentucky a question.
Mr. McClellan. I yield to the Sen¬
ator.
Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator from
Kentucky mentioned the Federal Power
Commission law. I should like to ask the
Senator from Kentucky if it is not a
fact that the construction of any of
these dams might have in view the gen¬
eration of electricity. After they have
been approved by the Army engineers,
as the Senator suggested, is it not neces¬
sary that additional hearings be held by
the Federal Power Commission before
any permission is granted for the sale of
power?
Mr. BARKLEY. I think that is true.
They have general authority, under the
law, to pass upon a license before dis¬
posing of power generated by a dam, even
though the dam is approved by the Chief
of Engineers.
The primary function of the Corps of
Engineers in regard to the improvement
of rivers originally was to pass upon
whether a proposed improvement would
obstruct navigation or improve naviga¬
tion. That has been enlarged from time
to time. By and large, any prospective
producer of power must have a license
from the Federal Power Commission.
Mr. MAYBANK. How about the Gov¬
ernment?
Mr. BARKLEY. I am not able to say
from memory whether that applies to
the Government.
Mr. MAYBANK. But before a pro¬
spective producer of power on any river
can get his license the Federal Power
Commission holds proper hearings?
Mr. BARKLEY. That is true; they
have to do that; they have to determine
who is best able to produce the power.
Mr. MAYBANK. And whether it is
necaesary?
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes.
Mr. McClellan. That would not ap¬
ply to the multiple projects, would it?
Mr. BARKLEY. Only incidentally,
because sometimes the production of
power in flood-control projects is inci¬
8371
dental. Indeed, in most cases it Is inci¬
dental.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, I
have stated my position with respect to
the proposed modification of the commit¬
tee amendment, and I hope it will not
be adopted.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Barkley] to the commit¬
tee amendment.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, it is
apparent that we cannot pass the bill
this evening, and as there are some fur¬
ther provisions with respect to irriga¬
tion and reclamation which very seriously
affect the whole northwestern area, I
should like to have an opportunity to
study them during the evening, as I have
not had an opportunity to do so. For
that reason I am going to ask that the
bill may go over until tomorrow.
Mr. OVERTON. Can we not dispose of
this one amendment?
Mr. WHEELER. No, because I think
this whole amendment vitally affects the
provisions with reference to irrigation
and reclamation, and before we pass upon
it I should like to have an opportunity
to see how far it does affect irrigation.
For instance, I And this provision:
Such irrigation works may be undertaken
only after a report and findings thereon have
been made by the Secretary of the Interior
as provided in said Federal reclamation laws
and after subsequent specific authorization
of the Congress by an authorization act; and,
within the limits of the water users’ repay¬
ment ability such report may be predicated
on the allocation to irrigation of -an appro¬
priate portion of the cost of structures and
facilities used for irrigation and other pur¬
poses.
From a hasty reading of the language,
a serious question is raised in my mind
as to whether the Secretary of War would
not have to pass upon the question of
whether people about to receive the bene¬
fit of the improvement would be able to
repay the cost, rather than have that de¬
termined by the Reclamation Bureau and
the Department of the Interior, who are
always the ones properly to pass upon
the question.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
Secretary of War has nothing to do with
that.
Mr. WHEELER. I am not so sure but
that the Senator is making that state¬
ment too hastily. Notwithstanding what
the Senator’s assistant tells him, I think
there is a very serious question as to
whether the Secretary of War does not
have to do with it. At least, I desire to
look into the matter further.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection to the amend¬
ment being passed over? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, on be¬
half of the senior Senator from New Jer¬
sey [Mr. Hawkes], who has been called
from the Senate Chamber this afternoon,
I offer an amendment to section 10, on
page 38, after line 22, which has to do
with authorizing a survey or preliminary
examination of a project.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Jhe amendment will be stated.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 21
8372
The Legislative Clerk. On page 38,
after line 22, it is proposed to insert the
following:
Absecon Island, N. J., with a view to the
protection of Atlantic City, Ventnor, Margate
City, Longport, and other areas on the New
Jersey coast that have been affected from
floods due to tide and wind.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection to the immedi¬
ate consideration of the amendment
Mr. OVERTON. There is no objection
so far as I am concerned, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I do
not know of any further amendments to
be taken up this afternoon. Quite a
number of amendments have gone over.
I hope we may be able to complete action
on the bill tomorrow.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. BARKLEY. I move that the Sen¬
ate proceed to the consideration of exec¬
utive business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider executive
business.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore laid before the Senate messages
from the President of the United States
submitting sundry, nominations (and
withdrawing a nomination) , which were
referred to the appropriate committees.
(For nominations this day received
and nomination withdrawn, see the end
of Senate proceedings.)
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following favorable reports of
nominations were submitted:
By Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts:
From the Committee on Finance:
Brig. Gen. Frank T. Hines, United States
Army, to be Retraining and Reemployment
Administrator, to which office he was ap¬
pointed during the last recess of the Sen¬
ate; and
William H. Burke, Jr., of Northampton,
Mass., to be collector of customs for customs
collection district No. 4, with headquarters
at Boston, Mass., to fill an existing vacancy.
From the Committee on Naval Affairs:
Capt. Harry L. Merrlng, United States Navy,
retired, to be a rear admiral in the Navy on
the retired list, for temporary service, to con¬
tinue while serving as Deputy Chief of Indus¬
trial Readjustment Branch of the Office of
Procurement and Material;
WUllam F. Hausman, a naval aviator of the
Marine Corps Reserve, to be a first lieutenant
in the Regular Marine Corps, in accordance
with the provisions of the Naval Aviation Per¬
sonnel Act of 1940, as amended, to rank from
the 1st day of September 1939; and
Sundry naval aviators in the Marine Corps
Reserve, a meritorious noncommissioned of¬
ficer, and sundry citizens to be second lieu¬
tenants in the Marine Corps.
By Mr. WILEY, from the Committee on the
Judiciary:
Charles H. Cashin, of Wisconsin, to be
United States attorney for the western dis¬
trict of Wisconsin, vice John J. Boyle, de¬
ceased.
By Mr. BAILEY, from the Committee on
Commerce :
Harllee Branch, of Georgia, to be a member
of the Civil Aeronautics Board for the terra of
6 years from January 1, 1946 (reappoint¬
ment) ; and
Sundry officers for appointment and/or
promotion for temporary service in the Coast
Guard.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. If there be no further reports of
committees, the clerk will state the nom¬
inations on the Executive Calendar,
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMIS¬
SION-NOMINATION PASSED OVER
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Edward Macauley, of California,
to be a member. United States Maritime
Commission, for the term of 6 years from
September 26, 1944.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, in view
of the fact that the Committee on Com¬
merce reported this nomination on Sep¬
tember 20, 1944, I think I should say to
the Senate that consideration of the
nomination has been delayed at the in¬
stance of the senior Senator from Ne¬
vada [Mr. McCarran], who is absent and
who informs me that he is not likely to
appear here prior to the first of Decem¬
ber. The committee has approved the
nomination. I do not think any charges
are pending in the committee against
this nominee. There never have been
charges made against him. Whether the
Senate will proceed to consider the nom¬
ination or not is a question for the Sen¬
ate to decide. The facts are that Cap¬
tain Macauley’s term expired just about
the time Congress adjourned prior to the
election. So he has been deprived of his
salary from then until now and will be
deprived of it until we confirm the nom¬
ination. Moreover, the Maritime Com¬
mission is deprived of his services.
I submit the matter to the Senate. I
do not know whether the Senate wishes
to await the return of the senior Sena¬
tor from Nevada. If it does, I have no
objection. But I believe that Captain
Macauley is entitled to some consid¬
eration. Acting on his nomination has
been delayed from September 20 until
now; that is, for 2 months the matter
has been hanging fire here.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. The question is. Will the Senate
advise and consent to this nomination?
The nomination was confirmed.
UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the United States
Public Health Service.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the nomina¬
tions in the United States Public Health
Service will be confirmed en bloc.
That completes the Executive Calen¬
dar.
AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE AND REFER
NOMINATIONS
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that any nomination
that may be sent to the Senate by the
President today may be received by the
Secretary of the Senate and be appro¬
priately referred.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Is there objection to the request of
the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
does the request include appropriate ref¬
erence of the nominations to commit¬
tees?
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem¬
pore. Without objection, the request
will be granted.
(Subsequently, sundry nominations to
the Office of War Mobilization and Re¬
conversion and the Surplus Property
Board were received and, under the above
order, appropriately referred.)
RECESS
Mr. BARKLEY. As in legislative ses¬
sion, I move that the Senate take a recess
until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 4
o’clock and 18 minutes p. m.) the Sen¬
ate took a recess until tomorrow,
Wednesday, November 22, 1944, at 12
o’clock meridian.
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate November 21, 1944:
The Judiciary
DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Henry A. Sohweinhaut, of Maryland, to be
an associate justice of the District Court of
the United States for the District of Colum¬
bia, vice Hon. Oscar R. Luhring, deceased.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
Gerald A. Gleeson, of Pennsylvania, to be
United States attorney for the eastern dis¬
trict* of Pennsylvania. (Mr. Gleeson is now
serving in this office under an appointment
which expired October 8, 1944.)
Steve M. King, of Texas, to be United States
attorney for the eastern district of Texas.
(Mr. King is now serving in this office under
an appointment which expired July 30, 1944.)
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
Jordan B. Royall, of Florida, to be United
States marshal for the northern district of
Florida. (Mr. Royall is now serving in this
office under an appointment which expired
June 19, 1944.)
Surplus Property Board
The following-named persons to be mem¬
bers of the Surplus Property Board:
Robert A. Hurley, of Connecticut.
Lt. Col. Edward Heller, of California.
Office of War Mobilization and
Reconversion
The following-named persons to be mem¬
bers of the Advisory Board, Office of War
Mobilization and Reconversion:
public members
O. Max Gardner, of North Carolina.
William H. Davis, of New York.
Anna M. Rosenberg, of New York.
labor members
William Green, of Ohio.
Phillip Murray, of Pennsylvania.
T. C. Cashen, of New York.
agriculture members
Edward A. O’Neal, of Alabama,
James G. Patton, of Colorado.
Albert S. Goss, of Washington,
industry members
Eric A. Johnston, of Washington.
George H. Mead, of Ohio.
Nathaniel Dyke, Jr., of Arkansas.
Register of Land Office
Richard McEHligott, of Oregon, to be regis¬
ter of the land office at Roseburg, Oreg.,
f .
OFFICE OF BUDGET AITD FINjiUCE
Legislative Reports and Service Section
7gth-2nd^o.l6l
MGEST OP PEOCBEDINGS OF COKGEESS .OF IIITIEESI 1(3 THE .fiSPASIlffim OF 7gHICTILTUHE
(Issued Uovember 23, -1944, for adtions of Wednesday. Weyember .22.' iq44'l
(For staff of, ^tLe Department. ..(^7^)'
4^ourninent . (.6 ,11
iioS^riations . ,3
lildWgs . 4
Cmmitt^ assignnents. .•«S
Cop insui^nce. . 1
CmmunicatidiijS . 4
Fsctrifi cation. . 7
CODTEBTS
Flood control. .... .3,7,12
Forestry. . . 2,13
Latin America... . 5
Missouri Valley Authori- ■
ty . ' . ....12
nomination . .10
HOUSE
Pdst~w^r -planning. . *■* » 2
■; 10,13,14,15
Property managementV. 3, I5
PuLlic works . .3,l4
Hoad" authorizations. .2', 13
Taxation. . . ,9
Transportation, . . . . . . 2, 13
w
Pep
CROP inSURAHCE. :^|sed, 25j4-l6 with tenements H.E.4911, to amend the Federal
Crop Insurance Act’^,(pp. 8458-64).
insurance, for Ibsses ,
than a ^ sum equivallnt to 25 percent of t4;6 premiums collected in the
preceding year (hegih^ing calculation q,i;‘ premiums collected in the
crop year 1945) shall ‘be used for adm^'nist native ex-penses in anv
current year (pp. 8458-9)-,,, " -
• Andre sen, Minn., to provi^i^ for. insurance for oats, harley, 'and rye
tp. ■•8460) ...... y . /. .■ -• .• .
Dcp. Flannagan’s (Va.) requeh^'. "that all amiondments' to S'U'bsection
2, of section 1, adding commodities, 'bd Consolidated and appear in the bill
after the word 'hay"' in Sec.l(2) an.d' in Se,c-.5 (p. 8460).
t Re_jected Rep. Smith's (Ohio) amendrabnt to st'i^ike out the Words "but for the
first tnree crop years with respect to which- i\suranpe has been in'' effect on
any crop after the enactment of^-.€iiis Act the parent shall not be reduced by
more than I5 per centum of thq,, 'amount of the approved claim." In support of
nis amendment Rep. Smith ^ staged, ".My amendment simply; strikes out thbt provi¬
sion which provides for taking care of these losses by the Federal Treasury."
(p. 8459-60.) . : 7^
Rep. Flanagan, Va. , inserted a statement, "Essential Provision of H.R. 4911"
(pp. 8462-4) . / - ^
- y
2 RO^ AUTHORI ZATIOHsXgreed to the resolutio,^ providing for the consideration of
H.R. 4915, the i^d-authori;sationsbill (pp. 8464-9). 'h
The bill auth^^es annual appropriations, for the first 3 uost-v/ar years, as
follows: yy - -
-y/- aid highways, $225 , 000 , OnO ... 7, *
SecM^ary and feeder roads (including farra-to-market roads), $12^000,000
Urlaifen highways, $150,000,0^’0
_es_t highways, $25,000,000 (including $1,500,000 for Alaska)
_rore_st develoument roads and trails, $12,500,000
National Park Service roads, trails, and parkways, $9,250,000
•1 2'-
3. appropriations. Received (Nov, l4) supplemental appropriation estimatesfor
Federal Property Utilization. Procurement Division, for expenses incidental
to disposition of surplus property under the Surplus Property Act of 1944,
$11,430,000, (H. Doc, 730)1 Public Works ( c ommuni t y f ac i 1 i t i e s ) , $15,OOQC(5
(H. Doc. 735); War Department, Civil' Functidna', Flood Control. $7,230,000 (H.
Doc. 745)* To Appropriations Committee,
4. BUILDIN&S; COM-'IUNICATIONS. Received- (Nov, i4) from the President a proposed
provision that "other services"-, an. the. Public Buildings' Administration ap¬
propriation language, shal‘1' be- deemed to include teletype service and tele¬
phone svdtchboards or equivalent equipment serving one' or mo-re go-ve-rnmental
activities in buildings ire 'or -near -D.. .0,. operated by PBA where such service
■ is economical and in the "interest *o£ .t.he Government; and that -the appropria¬
tion shall also be available for the furnishing of quarters,' maintenance,
and teletype or other services on a reimbursable basis ’to any governmental
activity and for expenses incident to moving any governmental activity in
connection with the assignment, allocation, or transfer of building space.
To Appropriations Committee. (H. Doc, 742.)
5. LATIN aI'IERICa. Received (Nov. l4) from the President a proposal to consolidate
the 1944 and 1945 State Department" appropriations for cooperation with the
American 'republics. To Appropriations Committee. (H. Doc. iSO.)
6. adjourned until Friday, N.o.v, 24 (p. 8469).
SENaTE
7. FLOOD CONTROL. Continued debate on H. R, 4485, the Whittington flood-control
bill (pp. 8431-55). Agreed to Sen. Barkley's (Ky.) amendment to the committee
amendment, tp establish a policy of using existing Federal agencies for flood
control projects, so as to limit the declaration of policy to the projects ■
carried in this bill (pp. 8432). The committee amendment providing for the
disposition of surplus electric energy by the Secretary of the Interior as
modified by Sen. Bailey's (N. C.) amendment bo as to provide for the complete
coordination of such power with other power developments within a given area j
was carried over until FSri . , Nov. 24. (pp. 8432-55). . '
M
Agreed to Sen. Barkley's request to permit any Senator to speak only once on
■ -the Bailey . amendment and limiting to I5 minutes the time 'which he may speak
on the amendment (p. 8454),
8. COMinTTEE ASSIGNMENTS . ^Committee Chairmen were selected as follows (p. S427)!
Agriculture and' Forestry, Sen. Thomas, Okla,.
Patents, Sen. Pepper, Fla.
Indian Affairs, Sen. 'O' Mahoney, Wyo.
9. SOCIAL- SECURITY TAXES. Sen. Vandenberg, Mich., spoke in favor of continuing
the present social-security tax rate (pp. 8428-9) .
10. NOMINATION. Confirmed the nomination of Brig. Gen, Frank T. Hines to be '
Retraining and Reemployment Administrator (p. 8455)* I
'
I
11. ADJOURNED until Fri., Nov. 24 (p. 8455).
(
,j
78th congress T ¥ ¥> A A ^
4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 22 (legislative day, November 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENTS
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Mtjeeay (for himself and Mr.
Langee) to the bill (H. E. 4485) authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for
flood control, and for other purposes, viz: On page 20, line
4, strike out all through page 24, line 7 ; and on page 47,
after line 2, add the following :
1 TITLE II
2 Sec. 201. In order to provide for the control and pre-
3 vention of floods in the Missouri Valley region and the
»
4 reclamation of pubhc lands, to safeguard the navigable waters,
5 to promote navigation, and to encourage the fuller develop-
b ment and utilization of the resources of the region, all for the
I purpose of fostering and protecting the commerce among the
11-22-44 - E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
several States, strengthening the national defense, conserving
the water, soil, and forest resources of the Nation, and promot¬
ing the general welfare of the United States, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the United States —
(a) that the Federal Government shall establish
and mamtain a broad program of unified water control
and resource development for the Missouri Valley re¬
gion, consisting of the entire Missouri Fiver, its tribu¬
taries and watershed, and such adjoining territory as
may be related to or materially affected by the develop¬
ment consequent to this title ;
(b) that the administration of such a multipurpose
program shall be entrusted to a Federal regional agency
having its principal headquarters in the region, which
shall he directly responsible to the President and Con¬
gress, with full authority and responsibility for canying
out the program herein authorized;
(c) that such a regional agency shall utihze to the
fullest possible extent the advice, assistance, and coop¬
eration of the people of the region, and their public and
private organizations — ^local. State, and Federal.
Seo. 202. (a) To carry out the purposes and policy of
this title, there is hereby created a body corporate which
shall be known as the ‘‘Missouri Valley Authority” (herein-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
\
after referred to as the “Corporation’^) and which shall be
an instrumentality of the United States.
(b) The Coi’poration shall maintain its principal office
at a convenient place in the territory in which its activities
are conducted. Upon selecting the location of its principal
office, and in the event it later makes a change in such loca¬
tion, the Corporation shall file with the Secretaiy of State
public notice of such selection or change.
Sec. 203. (a) The Corporation shall be directed and
controlled by a board of three directors, who shall be ap¬
pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. In appointing the members of the hoard, the
President shall designate the chairman. All other officials,
agents, and employees shall he designated and selected by the
Corporation. All matters of policy shall be considered and
determined by the board of directors acting as a board.
Each member of the board, before entering upon the duties
c
of his office, shall subscribe to an oath (or affirmation) to
support the Constitution of the United States and to perform
faithfully and impartially the duties imposed upon him by
this Act.
(b) The terms of office of the members first taking
office after the approval of this Act shall ^expire as desig¬
nated by the President at the time of nomination, one at the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
end of the third year, one at the end of the sixth year, and
one at the end of the ninth year after the date of approval
of this Act, A successor to a memher of the board shall
be appointed in the same manner as the original members
and shall have a term of office expiring nine years from
the date of the expiration of the term for which his prede¬
cessor was appointed.
(c) Any member appointed to fill a vacancy in the
board occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which his predecessor was appointed shall he appointed for
the remainder of such term.
(d) Vacancies in the board, so long as tjbere shall be
two members in office, shall not impair the powers of the
board to execute the functions of the Corporation, and two
of the members in office shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of the business of the board.
(e) Each of the members of the hoard shall be a citi¬
zen of' the United States and shall receive a salary at the
rate of $12,500 a year, to be paid by the Corporation as
current expenses. Members of the board shall be reim¬
bursed by the Corporation for actual expenses (including
traveling and subsistence expenses) mcmTed by them m
the performance of the duties vested m the board by this
title. JSTo member of said board shall, during his continu-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
ance in office, be engaged in any other business, but each
member shall devote himself to the work of the Corporation.
(f) N^o director shall, during his continuance in office,
have a financial interest in any public-utility company en¬
gaged in the business of generating, transmitting, distributing,
or selling power to the public ; nor in any holding company
or subsidiary company of a holding company as those terms
I
are defined in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935; nor in any business that may be adversely affected
by the success of the Corporation.
Sec. 204. (a) The board shall, without regard to the
provisions of civil-service laws applicable to officers and em¬
ployees of the United States, employ such managers, assistant
managers, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and con¬
sultants as are necessary for the transaction of its business,
fix their compensation, define their duties, require bonds of
such of them as the board may designate, and provide a
system of organization to fix responsibility and promote
efficiency. Any employee of the board, may be removed in
the discretion of the board. No regular officer or employee
of the Corporation shall receive a salary in excess of that
received by the members of the board. Subject to the pro¬
visions of this title and of other laws of the United States,
the Corporation shall deal collectively with its employees
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
through representatives of their own choosing and is author¬
ized to enter into written or oral contracts with such em¬
ployee representatives.
(h) In the emplo}unent, selection, classification, and
promotion of officers and employees of the Corporation, no
political test or qualification shah be permitted or given con¬
sideration, but all such employments and promotions shall
be given and made on the basis of merit and efficiency.
Any employee of the board who is found by the hoard to
be guilty of a violation of this subsection shall be removed
from office by the board. It shall he unlawful for a member
of the board to make or assist in the making of or cause
to be made any employment, selection, classification, or pro¬
motion of any officer or employee of the Corporation on the
basis of or because of anj^ political qualification or test, and
any member of the board who violates this provision shall
be guilty of an offense against the United States and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(c) The benefits of the Act entitled '‘An Act to pro¬
vide compensation for employees of the United States suf¬
fering injuries while in the perfonnance of their duties, and
for other purposes”, approved September 7, 1916, as
amended, shall extend to persons given employment under
the provisions of this title; and the remedies afforded by
7
1 such Act of September 7, 1916, as amended, shall be ex-
2 elusive and in lieu of any other remedy. •
3 (d) All contracts to which the Corporation is a party
4 and which require the employment of laborers and mechanics
5 in the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of
6 buildings, dams, locks, or other structures of facilities shall
7 contain a provision that not less than the prevailing rate of
8 wages for work of a similar nature in the vicinity shall be
9 paid to such laborers or mechanics. In the event any
16 dispute arises as to what are the prevailing rates of wages,
[11 the question shall be referred to" the Secretary of Labor for
12 determination, and his decision shall be final. In the deter-
13 mination of such prevaihng rate or rates, due regard shall
14 be given to those rates which have been secured through
15 collective agreement by representatives of employers and
16 employees. Where such work as is described in this sub-
♦
17 section is done directly by the Corporation, the prevailing
18 rate of wages shall be paid in the same manner as though
19 such work had been let by contract.
20 (b) The Corporation is authorized to request the assist-
21 ance and advice of any officer, agent, or employee of any
22 executive department, any independent office or agency of
23 the United States, to enable the Corporation the better to
21 carry out its powers successfully, and as far as practicable
3^ shall utilize the services of such officers, agents, and em-
I
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
,9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ployees, and the President shall, if in his opinion the public
interest, service, or economy so require, direct that such
assistance, advice, and service be rendered to the Corpora¬
tion, and any individual that may be by the President di¬
rected to render such assistance, advice, and service shall
be thereafter subject to the orders, rules, and regulations of
the board.
Sec. 205. Subject to the provisions of this title, the Cor¬
poration —
(a) shall have succession in its corporate name ;
(b) may adopt and use a corporate seal, which shall
be judicially noticed ;
(c) shall have power to enter into such contracts
and agreements, and to exercise such powers and do
such things as may be necessary or appropriate to cany
out the powers now or hereafter conferred upon it by
law ;
(d) may sue and he sued in its corporate name and
may settle and adjust claims held by it agamst other
parties or persons and by other parties and persons
against it;
(e) shall be held to he an inhabitant and resident,
within the meaning of the laws of the United States
relating to the venue of civil suits, of the judicial district
in which its principal office is located at the time of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
commencement of suit. The district courts of the United
States shall have original jurisdiction without regard to
the amount in controversy, over any proceeding brought
by or against the Corporation. Any proceeding brought
against the Corporation in a court of any State may be
removed by the Corporation to the district court of the
United States for the district in which the proceeding
is pending, and, to effect such removal, it shall not be
necessary that any other party or parties defendant join
in the petition for removal. Except as otherwise pro¬
vided herein, the procedure for removal shall be accord¬
ing to the applicable laws of the United States relating
to removal;
(f) notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
district court of the United States for the district in which
the Corporation’s principal office is located when suit is
commenced shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of
all proceedings against the Corporation or against any
director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, in which
is drawn in question the validit}^ of this title or of any
other law of the United States, or the validity of any act
or conduct of the Corporation or of such director, officer,
employee, or agent done pursuant to or under color of
this title or any other such law.
A. H. E. 4485E - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Sec. 206. (a) The net proceeds for each fiscal year de¬
rived hy the hoard from the sale of power, water, and any
products manufactured hy the Corporation, and from any
other activities of the Corporation, including the disposition
of any real or personal property, after deducting the cost of
operation, maintenance depreciation, interest on bonds, amor¬
tization, and an amount deemed by the hoard as necessary
to withhold as operating capital or devoted hy the board
to new construction, shall be paid into the Treasury of the
United States at the end of each calendar year.
(b) All funds required hy the Corporation in addition
to those derived and expended pursuant to subsection (a)
hereof shall he provided by appropriations in accordance
with the procedures of the Budget and Accounting Act of
June 10, 1921 (42 Stat. 20), except as otherwise provided
herein. All appropriations necessary to cany out this title
are hereby authorized.
(c) The Corporation shall at all times maintain com¬
plete and accurate hooks of account. In December of each
year the hoard shall file with the President and the Congress
V
a financial statement and a complete report as to the busi¬
ness of the Corporation covering tlie preceding governmental
fiscal year.
(d) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Cor¬
poration shall determine and prescribe the manner in which
11
1 its obligations and expenses shall be incurred, allowed, paid,
2 and audited: Provided, That in addition to such other audits
3 as the Corporation may deem necessary or desirable, if any,
4 the Comptroller General of the United States shall audit the
5 transactions of the Corporation at such times as he shall
6 determine, but not less frequently than once each govern-
7 mental fiscal year, with i)ersonnel of his selection. In such
8 connection he and his representatives shall have free and
9 open access to all papers, books, records, files, accounts,
10 plants, warehouses, offices, and all other things, property,
11 and places belonging to or under the control of or used or
12 employed by the Corporation, and shall be afforded full
13 facilities for counting all cash and verifying transactions with
14 and balances in depositaries. He shall make report of each
15 such audit in quadruplicate, one copy for the President of
16 the United States, one for the chairman of the board, one for
17 public inspection at the principal office of the Corporation,
18 and the other to be retained by him for the uses of the Con-
19 gress: Provided, That such report shall not be made until
20 the Corporation shall have had reasonal)le opportunity to
21 examine the exceptions and criticisms of the Comptroller
22 General or the General Accounting Office, to point out errors
23 therein, explain or answer the same, and to file a statement
24 which shall be submitted by the Com])troller General with
25 bis report. The expenses for each such audit shall be paid
12
1 from any appropriation or appropriations for the General
2 Accounting Office, and such part of such expenses as may
3 be allocated to the cost of generating, transmitting, and dis-
4 trihuting electric energy, shall he reimbursed promptly by
5 the Corporation as hilled by the Comptroller General. The
6 Comptroller General shall make special report to the Presi-
7 dent of the United States and to the Congress of any transac-
8 tion or condition found by him to he in conflict with the
9 powers or duties entrusted to the Corporation by law.
10 (e) Xothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve
ill the treasurer or other accountable officers or employees of
12 the Corporation from compliance with the provisions of
13 existing law requiring the rendition of accounts for adjust-
14 ment and settlement pursuant to section 236, Revised Stat-
15 utes, as amended by section 305 of the Budget and Account-
16 ing Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 24), and accoimts for all receipts
IT and disbursements by or for the Corporation shall be ren-
18 dered accordingly: Provided, That subject only to the pro-
19 visions of this title, the Corporation is authorized to make
20 such expenditures and to enter into such contracts, agree-
21 ments, and arrangements, upon such terms and conditions,
22 and in such manner as it may deem necessary, including
23 the final settlement of all claims and litigation b}^ or against
24 the Corporation; and, notwithstanding the provisions of
2^ any other law governing the expenditure of public
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13
funds, the Greneral Accounting Office, in the settlement of
the accounts of the treasurer or other accountable officer o-r
employee of the Corporation, shall not disallow credit for,
nor withhold funds because of, any expenditure which the
board shall determine to have been necessary to carry out
the provisions of this title.
(f) The Corporation shall determine its own system
of admmistrative accounts and the forms and contents of its
contracts and other business documents except as otherwise
provided in this title.
Sec. 207. The Corporation is hereby authorized —
(a) to acquire, by purchase, lease, condemnation,
or donation such real and personal property and any in¬
terest therein, and may sell, lease, or otherwise dispose
of any real and personal property and any interest
therein, as in its judgment may he necessary or appro¬
priate in carrying out the purposes of the Corporation
under this title or any other law of the United States:
Provided, however, That the Corporation shall not dis¬
pose of any real property on which is located a perma¬
nent dam, hydraulic power plant, or munitions plant
heretofore or hereafter constructed by or on behalf of the
United States or the Corporation: Provided further,
\
That the provisions of section 355, Eevised Statutes (40
U. S. C. 255), as amended, shall be inapplicable as
respects acquisitions by the Corporation ;
(b) to acquire real estate for the construction of
dams, reservoirs, transmission lines, powerhouses, power
structures, irrigation canals, diversion facilities, ditches,
laterals, conduits, and pipe lines, levees, floodways, struc¬
tures, and facilities useful for flood control, navigation,
reclamation, irrigation, and sites for defense projects, to¬
gether with appurtenant facilities, at any point along the
Missouri Eiver, its tributaries, and watershed ; and in the
event that the owner or owners of such property shall
fail and refuse to sell to the Corporation at a price deemed
fair and reasonable by the hoard, then the Corporation
shall have power in the name of the United States to
exercise the power of eminent domain; and title to all
real property or interest therein, whether acquired by
condemnation or otherwise, shall be taken in the name of
the United States of America, and thereupon such real
property shall, for the purposes of this title, be entrusted
to the Corporation as agent of the United States. All
condemnation proceedings shall be had pursuant to the
provisions and requirements hereinafter specified: Pro¬
vided, That nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
Act shall be construed to deprive the Corporation of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Il¬
ls
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
rights conferred by the Act of February 26, 1931 (46
Stat. 1422, secs. 1-5) ;
(c) to purchase and acquire such materials and
other personal property as may be required to carry
out the purposes and policy of this title. All purchases
and contracts for supplies or services, except for per¬
sonal services, made b}^ the Corporation shall be made
after advertising, in such manner and at such times
sufficiently in advance of opening bids, as the board
shall determine to be adequate to insure notice and op-
portunit}^ for competition: Provided, however, That
advertisement shall not be required when ( 1 ) the board
determines that an emergency requires immediate de¬
liver}^ of the supplies or performance of the services;
or (2) repair parts, accessories, supplemental equip¬
ment, or services are required for supplies or services
previously furnished or contracted for; or (3) the
aggregate amount involved in any purchase of supplies
or procurement of services does not exceed $500;^ in
• which cases such purchases of supplies or procurement
of services may be made in the open market in the
manner common among businessmen : Provided further,
That in comparing luds and in making awards the 1)oard
may consider such factors as relative quality and adapt-*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
ability of supplies or services, the bidder’s financial re¬
sponsibility, skill, experience, record of integrity in deal¬
ing, abilit}^ to furnish repairs and maintenance services,
the time of delivery or performance offered, and whether
the bidder has complied with the specifications.
Sec. 208. (a) The Corporation is hereby authorized
and directed to formulate and report to tlie President and Con¬
gress with the utmost expedition, and m any event not later
than two years from the enactment of this Act, its recom¬
mendations for the unified development of the Missouri Valley
region in accordance with the pm’poses and policy of this .
title. Such recommendations shall include a complete plan
for the unified control and utilization of the waters of the
Missouri Elver system, wliich wiU reconcile and harmonize
the requirements for flood control, navigation, reclamation
power, and other needs in such a way as to secure the maxi¬
mum public benefit for the region and I^ation. Particular
consideration in such a plan and recommendations shall be
given to projects and activities which shall serve the follow¬
ing purposes :
(1) The control and prevention of floods which impair
and disrupt navigation, the facilities of interstate commerce,
the properties and functions of the United States, and agri¬
cultural and industrial properties and production, by, among
other means, the storage, control, and disposition of flood
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IG
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
and surplus waters, and the control and retardation of water
run-off and the restoration and improvement of the absorption
and infiltration ca]3acity of the soil. Projects for such pur¬
poses shall include, but not by way of limitation, dams, reser¬
voirs, levees, spillways, and floodways; improved methods
and conditions of soil conservation, utilization, fertilization,
and cultivation ; and the conservation of forests and afforesta¬
tion and reforestation of lands.
(2) The promotion of navigation b}^, among other
means, the improvement of the channels of navigable rivers
and their tributaries; the prevention of siltation of such
waters; the regulation of stream flow; and the development
and coordination of navigation facilities.
(3) The reclamation of arid or swampy public lands
by, among other means, the irrigation and drainage and the
economic development and use of such lands.
(4) The safeguarding of navigable waters and their
use by, among other means, the prevention and abatement
of pollution of navigable streams and their tributaries, and
the provision of sewage-disposal and water-purification works ‘
and structure and facilities in connection therewith.
(5) So far as may be consistent with or necessary or
appropriate for the control and prevention of floods, the
promotion of navigation, the safeguarding of navigable
A. H. P. 4485E - 3
18
1 waters, and the reclamation of the public lands, as pro-
2 vided in subsection (a) , plans shall give due regard to the
3 following, among other considerations: (1) The present
4 and future development and conservation of water for power,
5 irrigation, and other beneficial uses; (2) the prudent hus-
6 bandry of soil, mineral, and forest resources and their con-
7 servation for recreation, the protection of wild game, and
8 other beneficial uses; (3) the preventing of irreparable waste
9 of the N'ation’s resources from droughts, winds, dust storms,
1(1 and soil erosion; (4) the integration and interconnection of
11 projects and activities, the development of their multiple
12 purposes, and the equitable distribution of the benefits
13 thereof; (5) equitable contributions to cost by States and
14 subdivisions and agencies thereof specially benefited by the
15 projects and activities; and (6) such economic, social, and
16 cultural values as may be affected or furthered by the projects
17 and activities.
18 (b) The plan and recommendation authorized in sub-
19 section (a) hereof shall be in sufficient detail to provide
20 the President, the Congress, and the people and institutions
21 of the region with reasonably specific information as to —
22 (1) the water control and utilization policy and
23 program which should he established and maintained;
(2) the nature, scope, and general location of the
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
projects and activities recommended, and the estimated
cost and benefits thereof;
(3) the order of preference and priority which
should be followed in the construction and carrying out
of such projects and activities in the light of the war or
post-war conditions existing and anticipated at the time ‘
of the report.
(c) In formulating such plan and recommendations, the
Corporation shall give due consideration to existing surveys
and plans relating to water control and resource development
for various purposes, shall conduct such additional surveys
and investigations as it deems necessary or proper, and shall
enlist the advice and assistance of appropriate local. State,
and Federal governmental agencies, educational institutions,
and private organizations.
(d) The plan and recommendations formulated by the
Corporation and submitted to the President and Congress as
provided in subsection (a) hereof, shall lay before the Con¬
gress 'for its consideration for a period of not to exceed four
legislative months. If not affirmatively disapproved by the
Congress by joint resolution within such period, said plan
and recommendations shall be deemed to be effective as of
that date, and the provisions thereof shall be carried out in
accordance with their terms, subject to the provisions of this
title.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
Sec. 209. (a) The Corporation is authorized, whenever
in its judgment the purposes and policy of this title and the
interests of economy and efficiency will be served thereby,
to obtain the transfer to the Corporation of the use, posses¬
sion, control, and operation of any dam and other water-
control projects, together with appurtenant works and trans¬
mission facilities, constructed, under construction, or here¬
after constructed by or in behalf of the United States or
any of its instrumentalities in the Missouri Valley region,
and of such other real and personal property of the United
States and its instrumentalities as the Corporation may from
»
time to time deem necessaiy and proper for the purposes
of the Corporation as herein stated. The heads of the .
various departments and agencies having jurisdiction over
such projects, facilities, and other properties as above de¬
fined are hereby directed, upon the formal request of the
Corporation, and notwithstanding the restrictions or limi¬
tations of any other laws or regulations, to transfer to the
Corporation the use, possession, control, and operation of
all or any of such projects, facilities, and other properties
under their jurisdiction, including projects under construction.
The heads of such departments and agencies, as above de¬
fined, and the President, are respectively authorized to
transfer to the Corporation the use, possession, control, and
operation of such projects, facilities, and other properties
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
21
hereafter constructed by or on behalf of the United States
and its instrumentalities whenever in either of their respec¬
tive judgments the purposes and polic}^ of this title and the
interests of economy and efficiency will be served thereby.
In connection with any such transfer, the President shall
make such provision as he deems necessary or appropriate
for the transfer to the Corporation of unexpended balances
of appropriations available for use in respect of such dam and
other water-control projects, appurtenant works, transmission
facilities, and of such other property, together with personnel,
equipment, and any powers, duties, and obligations pertain¬
ing thereto.
(b) The Corporation is hereby authorized and directed
to construct, operate, and carry out such projects and activi¬
ties on the Missouri Kiver, its tributaries, and the surrounding
region as will best serve to control and prevent floods, to
safeguard the navigable waters, and to promote navigation
and the reclamation of the public lands. In order to effectu¬
ate such primal’}^ purposes with the greatest public benefit
and, so far as is consistent with such primary purposes, to
avoid the waste of water, water power, and other property
of the United States, the Corporation shall have such powers
as may be necessary or appropriate to construct, operate,
and carry out such projects or activities so as to accomplish
24
1 with States or subdivisions or agencies thereof, including local
2 levee and drainage districts, or other pul)lic or cooperative
3 agencies. The departments and agencies of the United
4 States are hereby authorized to participate in the construction
5 or operation of such projects or the conduct of such activities
6 on terms mutually agreeable to such department or agency
"7 and the Corporation.
8 (f) All the projects and activities authorized pursuant
9 to this section shall be constructed, operated, and carried out
10 in accordance with the purposes and policy of this title, and
11 from the effective date of the adoption by Congress of the
12 report specified in section 8 hereof, in accordance with the
18 more precise plan and recommendations formulated therein.
14 Sec. 210. (a) The hoard is hereby authorized to sell
15 surplus power generated and water stored by it, not used
16 in its operations or for operation of locks and other works
17 or in the case of reclamation projects for reclamation of
18 public lands, to States, counties, municipalities, corporations,
19 partnerships, and individuals, according to the policies here-
20 inafter set forth.
»
21 (b) To encourage the widest possible use of available
22 electric energy and water, to provide adequate markets and
23 outlets therefor, and to prevent the monopolization thereof
24 'by limited groups or localities, the Corporation shall acquire,
25 construct, operate, maintain, and improve such canals, con-
25
1 diiits, pipe lines, electric-transmission lines, rural-electric
2 lines, substations, and other structures and facilities as it
3 deems necessary or appropriate to bring electric energy, or
4 water, available for sale, from its projects to existing and
5 potential markets, and, in the case of electric energy, to
6 interconnect such project with other public or private projects
7 for the disposition or interchange of electric energy. To pro-
8 vide for emergencies, break-down relief, and increased safety
9 and econonw in operations, the Corporation may enter into
10 contracts upon suitable terms with public and private power
11 systems for mutual interchange of electric energy and for
12 reciprocal use of transmission facilities.
13 (c) To insure the disposition of the electric energy de¬
ll veloped and water stored at a project for the benefit of the
15 general public, and particularly of domestic and rural con-
16 suniers, the Corporation shall, in disposing of electric energ}^
17 and water, give preference and priority to States, districts,
18 counties, and municipalities, including agencies or instru-
19 mentalities thereof or of two or more States (in this title
20 called public agencies) , and to cooperative and other organ-
21 izations not organized or administered for profit but primarily
22 for the purpose of supplying electric energy or water to
23 their members as nearly as possible at cost (in this title
24 called cooperative agencies) . In the event of competing
25 applications by public or cooperative agencies (whether or
26
1 not formally organized) on the one hand, and other persons
2 or agencies on the other hand, the Corporation, in order to
3 preserve and protect the preferential rights and priorities
4 of such public and cooperative agencies, shall allow to people
5 and communities, when within such distance from such
6 project as to render practicable the transmission of power
7 or transportation of water therefrom, reasonable opportunity
8 and time to acquire, piu’chase, ' or construct the necessary
9 facilities for the use or distribution of such electric energy
10 to water, including reasonable opportunity and time to create
11 and finance such pubhc or cooperative agencies under the
12 laws of the several States.
12 (d) Subject to the provisions of this title, the Corpora-
14 ■ tion mav enter into contracts for the sale at wholesale of
c/
15 electric energy and water, whether for resale or direct con-
16 sumption, to public and cooperative agencies and to private
17 agencies and persons; and may sell electric energy direct^
18 to farms and in niral communities which the Corporation
19 finds are not adequately serviced with electric energy at
20 reasonable rates. Contracts entered into under this subsec-
21 tion shall he binding in accordance with the terms thereof and
22 sliall he effective for such period or periods, including renew-
23 als or extensions, as may be provided therein, not. exceeding
24 in the aggregate twenty years from the respective dates of
2'^ the making of such contracts. Such contracts shall contam
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
appropriate provisions, to be agreed upon between the Cor¬
poration and the purchaser, for the equitable adjustment of
rates at appropriate intervals. In the case of contracts with
private agencies or persons who resell the bulk of the electric
energy or water purchased, the contracts shall contain appro¬
priate provisions authorizing the Corporation to cancel the
contract, in whole or in part, upon five years’ notice in writ¬
ing whenever in its judgment there is reasonable likelihood
that part of the electric energy or water purchased under such
contract will be needed to satisfy the preferential rights and
priorities of public or cooperative agencies under this Act.
(e) Any contract for the sale of power or water may
include such terms and conditions, including resale rate sched¬
ules, and provide for such rules and regulations as in the
judgment of the board may be necessary or desirable for
carrying out the purposes of this Act, and in case the pur¬
chaser shall fail to comply with any such terms and condi¬
tions, or violate any such rules and regulations, said contract
may provide that it shall be voidable at the election of the
board.
(f) In order to supply farms and small villages with
electric power directly as contemplated by this section, the
board in its discretion shall have power to acquire existing
electric facilities used in serving such farms and small villages.
(g) The terms “States”, “counties”, and “municipali-
1
2
3
4
5
6
,7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
oo
23
24
25
28
ties” as used in this title shall be construed to include the
public agencies of any of them imless the context requires
a different construction.
(h) Eate schedules for the sale of electric energy and
water by the Corporation shall he prepared from time to
1
time by the Corporation. Subject to the provisions of sec¬
tion 212, the Corporation shall fix such rate schedules as it
finds necessary or appropriate to provide adequate markets
and outlets for electric energy and water and to encomnge
the widest possible use of electric energy and water, having
regard (upon the basis of the application of such rate sched¬
ules to the capacity of the contemplated electric or water
facilities of the Corporation or of a project of the Corpora-
tion) to the recovery of the cost of generating and trans¬
mitting such electric energy or storing and transporting
such water, including appropriate reserves for maintenance
and upkeep, and the amortization of the capital investment
over a reasonable period of years. In order to distribute
the benefits of integrated transmission system and to promote
the equitable distribution of electric energy, rate schedules
shall provide for uniform rates, or rates uniform throughout
prescribed transmission areas.
Sec. 211. In order (1) to facilitate the disposition of
the surplus power of the Corporation according to the policies
set forth in this title; (2) to give effect to the priority herein
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
•
23
24
25
29
accorded to States, counties, municipalities, and nonprofit
organizations in the purchase of such power by enabling
them to acquire facilities for the distribution of such power;
and (3) at the same time to preserye existing distribution
facilities as going concerns and avoid duplication of such
facilities, the board is authorized to advise and cooperate
with States, counties, mimicipalities, and nonprofit organiza¬
tions situated within transmission distance from any dam
where such power is generated by the Corporation and to
extend credit to such agencies and organizations and to
assist them in acquiring, improving, and operating (a)
existing distribution facilities and incidental works, includ¬
ing generating plants; and (b) interconnecting transmission
lines, or in acquiring any interest in such facilities, incidental
works, and lines. In order to facilitate the disposition of
surplus water in accordance with the provisions of this title,
the board is also authorized to advise and cooperate with
States, counties, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations
within distance permitting practicable purchase and utiliza¬
tion of water stored and available for sale at any work or
facility of the Corporation and to extend credit to such
agencies and organizations and to assist them in acquiring,
improving, and operating existing canals, conduits, laterals,
pipe lines, ditches, and incidental works and facilities, or in
acquiring any interests therein.
30
1 Sec. 212. (a) The board shall make a thorough in-
2 vestigation of the cost or value of each dam, steam plant,
3 or other similar improvement hereafter constructed by or
4 turned over to the Corporation for its management and con-
5 trol for the purpose of allocating such cost or value among
6 the various purposes served by the improvement — such as
^ navigation, flood control, irrigation, power development, or
8 other types of development, as the case may be. Costs of
9 facihties having a value only for one purpose shall be al-
Id located to that purpose ; costs of facihties having a joint value
11 for more than one purpose shall he equitably allocated among
1-2 such purposes in such manner as the board deems necessary
12 or appropriate to promote a sound national economy, to
14 encourage the widest possible economic use of water for
1
15 irrigation and of electric energy for domestic, rural, and
Id industrial needs, and to avoid the imposition upon any one
1"^ purpose of a greater share of joint costs than such purpose
12 should fairly hear. The board shall also determine the ap-
19 propriate periods and rates of amortization to he applied
20 to the capital investment allocated to a revenue-producing
21 purpose. The allocation of costs and the periods and rates
22 of amortization so determined by the board, when approved
22 by the President of the United States, shall be final and
21 shall be used thereafter in keeping the hooks of the Cor-
25 poration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
23
24
25
31
(b) The board shall, within three years from the date
of enactment of this Act, file with Congress a statement of
its allocation of the value of all such properties constructed
or turned over to said board and which have been completed
prior to the end of the preceding fiscal year, and shall there¬
after in its annual report to Congress file a statement of its
allocation of the value of such properties as have been com¬
pleted during the preceding fiscal year.
(c) For the purpose of accumulating data useful to the
Congress in the formulation of legislative policy in matters
relating to the generation, transmission, and distribution of
electric energy, and to the Federal Power Commission and
other Federal and State agencies, and to the public, the board
shall keep complete accounts of its costs of generation, trans¬
mission, and distribution of electric energy and shall keep a
complete account of the total cost of generating and trans¬
mission facilities constructed or otherwise acquired by the
Corporation, and a description of the major components of
such costs according to such uniform system of accounting
for pubhc utilities as prescribed by the Federal Power Com¬
mission, with such modifications as may be deemed by the
Corporation and Federal Power Commission to be necessary
or desirable by reason of the nature and character of the Cor¬
poration and its operations, together with records of such
other physical data and operating statistics of the Corpora-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
tion as may be lielpful in determining the actual cost and
value of services, and the practices, methods, facilities, ecpiip-
ment, appliances, and standards, and sizes, types, location,
and geographical and economic integration of plants and sys¬
tems best suited to promote the pul)lic interest, efficiency,
and the wider and more economical use of electric energy.
Such data shall he reported to the Congress by the hoard
from time to time with appropriate analyses and recom¬
mendations, and, so far as practicable, shall he made avail¬
able to the Federal Power Commission and other Federal
and State agencies which may he concerned with the admin¬
istration of legislation relating to the generation, transmission,
or distribution of electric energy. It is hereby declared to
be the policy of this title that, to make the Corporation’s
power and water projects self-supporting and self-hquidating,
as soon as practicable the surplus power and water shall be
sold at rates which, in tlie opinion of the board, will produce
gross revenues in excess of the cost of production of said
power or of the storage of said water, as the case may be;
and the board shall file with each annual report a statement
of the total cost of all power generated by it at all power
stations during each year, tlie average cost of such power per
kilowatt-hour, the total cost of all stored water sold by it
during each year, the rates at which such power and water
33
1 are sold, and to whom sold, and copies of all contracts for
2 the sale of power and water.
3 Sec. 213. (a) In order to render financial assistance
4 to those States in which the Coi'poration carries on its opera-
5 tions and acquires properties previously subject to State and
6 local taxation, the board is authorized and directed to pay
1 to said States during each fiscal 3Tar 5 per centum of the
8 gross proceeds derived from the sale of power and of water
9 by the Corporation for the preceding fiscal year as herein-
10 after provided. The payment for each fiscal 3^ear shall he
11 apportioned among said States by pa3dng to each State the
12 percentage thereof which the value of property held by the
18 Corporation within such State at the end of the preceding
14 fiscal 3Tar bears to the value of all property held by the
15 Corporation at the end of the preceding fiscal 3^ear. For
16 purposes of this section, propert3^ held by the Corporation
11 shall be deemed to include real property entrusted to the
18 Corporation as agent for the United States. The determina-
19 tion of the board of the amounts due hereunder to the respec-
20 tive States shall he final.
21 (b) The Corporation shall, not later than five years
22 after the enactment of this Act, submit to the Congress a
23 report on the operation of the provisions of this section, in-
24 eluding a statement of the distribution to the various States
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
and counties hereunder; the effect of the operation of the
provisions of this section on State and local finances; an
appraisal of the benefits of the program of the Corporation
to the States and counties receiving payments hereunder,
and the effect of such benefits in increasing taxable values
within such States and counties; and such other data, in¬
formation, and recommendations as may he pertinent to
future legislation.
(c) The pa3unents authorized under this section are
in lieu of taxation, and the Corporation, its property, fran¬
chises, and income are hereby expressly exempted from tax¬
ation in any maner or form b}^ any State, county, munici¬
pality, or any subdivision or district thereof.
Sec. 214. (a) To insure the integrated and coordinated
X)romotion of navigation, control, and prevention of floods,
safeguarding of navigable waters, reclamation of the public
lands, and protection of property of the United States, no
dam, appurtenant works, sewer, dock, pier, wharf, bridge,
s
trestle, landing pipe, building, float, dr other or different
obstruction or polluter affecting navigation, the use of
navigable waters, flood control and prevention, the public
lands, or property of the United States, shall he constmcted,
or operated or maintained, over, across, along, in, or into
the Missouri River, or any tributary stream of said river
or any tributary of such stream, except in accordance with
1
2
O
o
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
25
35
plans for such construction, operation, and maintenance
approved by the Corporation. The requirements of this
section shall be in addition to the requirements of all other
applicable laws of the United States or of any State; and
any approval, license, permit, or other sanction required by
any provision of any such law or laws for the construction,
operation, or maintenance of anj^ such obstruction or polluter
or any part thereof (except such as may be constructed,
operated, or maintained under this title or other law of the
United States by the Corporation) shall be required as in
such law provided.
(b) The Corporation may bring appropriate proceed¬
ings in a district court of the United States to enjoin any
violation of this section within the territorial jurisdiction of
such district court, or to require the removal of an 3^ obstruc¬
tion or polluter constructed, operated, or maintained within
such jurisdiction in violation of this section; and upon a
proper showing a temporar}^ or permanent injunction or
decree shall be granted without bond.
Sec. 215. In addition to formulating the plan and rec¬
ommendations required by section 208 of this ttile, the Cor¬
poration is hereby authorized to engage in the continuing
activities, more particularly defined below :
(a) To aid the proper use, conservation, and develop¬
ment of the natural resources of the Missouri Valley region.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and with a view to the coordination and integration of pro¬
grams, projects, and activities of agencies having an interest
•
in developing the resources of the region for the purpose
of increasing efficiency and eliminating waste and duplica¬
tion of effort, and to provide for the general welfare of the
citizens of said region, the Corporation is hereby authorized,
by such means or methods as it may deem proper to make
such surveys, investigations, studies, and plans for the Mis¬
souri Valley region as may be useful to the Pi’esident, the
Congress, and the several States in guiding and controllmg
the extent, sequence, and nature of development that may
be equitably and economical^ advanced through the expend¬
iture of public funds, or through the guidance or control of
public authority, all for the purpose of fostering an orderly
and proper physical, economic, and social development of
said region. '
(b) The Corporation is further authorized to undertake
such engineering and economic research and demonstrational
work as it deems necessary or appropriate (1) to develop
its studies and plans; (2) to test or demonstrate the feasi¬
bility of such plans ; (3) to promote the wider and improved
use of electric power and water for irrigation purposes, agri¬
cultural and domestic use, and for small or locally owned
industries; and (4) more efficiently to develop or cany out
any project or activity authorized under this title or en-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
37
trusted to the Corporation under any other Act or adminis¬
trative order. In order to carry out such activities, the
Corporation is authorized to acquire, construct, operate,
maintain, and improve such laboratories and experiment sta¬
tions as it deems necessary or appropriate.
(c) In carrying out the activities authorized in subsec¬
tions (a) and (b) hereof, the Corporation shall have the
power to study the plans, projects, and activities of the several
Federal departments and agencies having an interest in
resource development in the Missouri Valley region. The
Corporation, insofar as practicable, shall consult and co¬
operate with the field offices and services for any information
or data relevant to such plans, projects, and activities, and
it shall be the duty of such departments and agencies to have
their field offices and services take such action as may be
necessary or appropriate to cooperate with the Corporation.
(d) The Corporation, insofar as practicable, shall con¬
sult and cooperate with the States and with public and co¬
operative agencies in the making of studies, the collecting of
information and data, the development of plans, and the re¬
search, demonstrational, and educational work authorized for
carrying out the purposes of this title. The Corporation may
make availalde to the departments and agencies of the United
States and to the States and the people thereof, and to public
and cooperative agencies, such information, studies, and rec-
1
o
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
ommendations as it deems necessary or appropriate, and sucli
other information and studies and such recommendations for
State legislation as the Corporation deems advisable to aid in
carrying out the purposes of this title. The Corporation
shall, from time to time, as the work provided for in the
preceding subsections progresses, recommend to the Presi¬
dent and Congress such legislation as it deems proper to carry
out the general purposes stated in subsection (a) hereof.
Sec. 216. The Corporation is hereby granted the power
of eminent domain and may cause proceedings to be insti¬
tuted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, ease¬
ments, or rights-of-wa}^ which, in the opinion of the Corpora¬
tion, are necessaiy to cany out the provisions of this title.
The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States dis¬
trict court for the district in which the land,, easement, right-
of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located,
and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the com¬
plete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all
persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States
in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto
in the United States of America.
Upon the filing of a petition for condemnation and for
the purpose of ascertaining the value of the property to be
acquired, and assessing the compensation to be paid, the
court shall appoint three commissioners who shall be disinter-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
39
ested persons and who shall take and subscribe an oath that
they do not own any lands, or interest or easement in any
lands, which it -may be desirable for the United States to
acquire in the furtherance of said project, and such com¬
missioners shall not be selected from the locality wherein
the land sought to be condemned lies. Such commissioners
shall receive a per diem of not to exceed $15 for their serv¬
ices, together with an additional amount of $5 per day for
subsistence for time actuall}^ spent in performing their duties
as commissioners.
It shall be the duty of such commissioners to examine
into the value of the lands sought to be condemned, to con¬
duct hearings and receive evidence, and general^ to take
such appropriate steps as may be proper for the determina¬
tion of the value of the said lands sought to be condemned,
and for such purpose the commissioners are authorized to
administer oaths and subpena witnesses, which said wit¬
nesses shall receive the same fees as are provided for wit¬
nesses in the Federal courts. The said commissioners shall
thereupon file a report setting forth their conclusions as to
the value of the said property sought to be condemned, mak¬
ing a separate aw^ard and valuation in the premises with
respect to each separate parcel involved. Upon the filing of
such award in court, the clerk of said court shall give notice
1
o
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
of the filing of such award to the parties to said proceeding,
in manner and form as directed by the judge of said court.
Either or both parties may file exceptions to the award
of said commissioners within twenty days from the date of
the filing of said aw^ard in court. Exceptions filed to such
award shall be heard before three Eederal district judges
unless the parties, in waiting, in person, or by their attorneys,
stipulate that the exceptions may be heard before a lesser
number of judges. On such hearing such judges shah pass
de novo upon the proceedings had before the commissioners,
may view the property, and may take additional evidence.
Upon such hearings the said judges shall file their own
award, fixing therein the value of the property sought to be
condemned, regardless of the award previously made by the
said commissioners.
At any time within thirty days from the filing of the
decision of the district judges upon the hearing on excep¬
tions to the award made by the commissioners, either party
may appeal from such decision of the said judges to the circuit
court of appeals, and the said circuit court of appeals shall
upon the hearing on said appeal dispose of the same upon
the record, without regard to the awards or findings thereto¬
fore made b}^ the commissioners or the district judges, and
such circuit court of appeals shall thereupon fix the value of
the said property sought to be condemned.
41
1 Upon acceptance of an award by the owner of any prop-
2 erty herein provided to be appropriated, and the pajrment
3 of the money awarded or upon the failure of either party
4 to file exceptions to the award of the commissioners within
5 the time specified, or upon the award of the commissioners,
6 and the payment of the money by the United States pursu-
7 ant thereto, or the payment of the money awarded into the
8 registry of the court hy the Corporation, the title to said
9 property and the right to the possession thereof shall pass
10 to the United States, and the United States shall be entitled
11 to a writ in the same proceeding to dispossess the former
12 owner of said property, and all lessees, agents, and attorneys
13 of such former owner, and to put the United States, by its
14 corporate creature and agent, the Corporation, into possession
15 of said property.
15 In the event of any property owned in whole or in part
17 by minors, or insane persons, or incompetent persons, or
18 estates of deceased persons, then the legal representatives of
19 such minors, insane persons, incompetent persons, or estates
20 ‘ shall have power, by and with the consent and approval of
21 the trial judge in whose court said matter is for determina-
22 tion, to consent to or reject the awards of the commissioners
23 herein provided for, and in the event that there be no legal
24 representatives, or that the legal representatives for such
25 minors, insane persons, or incompetent persons shall fail or
42
1 decline to act, then such trial judge may, upon motion, ap-
2 point a guardian ad litem to act for such minors, insane
3 persons, or incompetent persons, and such guardian ad litem
4 shall act to the full extent and to the same purpose and effect
5 as his ward could act, if competent, and such guardian ad
6 htem shall he deemed to have full power and authority to
7 respond, to conduct, or to maintain any proceeding herein
8 provided for affecting his said ward.
9 Sec. 217. (a) The Corporation, as an instrumentality
10 of the Government of the United States, shall have access to
11 the Patent Office of the United States for the purpose of
12 studying, ascertaining, and copjdng all methods, formulas,
13 and scientific information (not including access to pending
14 applications for patents) necessary to enable the Coi'poration
15 to use and employ the most efficacious and economical proc-
16 esses in the course of its operations. Except as provided in
17 subsection (b), au}^ owner of a patent whose patent rights
18 may have been thus in any way copied, used, infringed, or
19 employed by the exercise of this authority by the Corpora-
20 tion shall have as the exclusive remedy a cause of action
21 against the Corporation, to be instituted and prosecuted in
22 the appropriate district court of the United States for the
23 recovery of reasonable compensation for such infringement.
24 The Commissioner of Patents shall furnish to the Corpora-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
43
tion at its request and without payment of fees, copies of
documents on file in his oflice.
(b) Any invention or discovery made by virtue of and
incidental to service to the Corporation by an employee of
the Goveniment of the United States pursuant to section
204 (h) of this title or otherwise, or by any employee of the
Corporation, together with any patents which may be
granted thereon, shall be the sole and exclusive property
of the Corporation, which is hereby authorized to grant
such licenses thereunder as shall be authorized by the board :
Provided further, That the board may pay to such inventor
such sum from the income from the sale of licenses as it
may deem proper.
Sec. 218. (a) All general penal statutes relating to the
larceny, embezzlement, conversion, or to the improper
handling, retention, use, or disposal of public moneys or
property of the United States shall apply to the moneys
and property of the Corporation and to moneys and properties
of the United States entrusted to the Corporation.
(b) Any person who, with intent to defraud the Cor¬
poration, or to receive any director, officer, or employee of
the Corporation or any officer or employee of the United
States (1) makes any false entry in any book of the Cor¬
poration, or (2) makes any false report or statement for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
the Corporation, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not
more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five j^ears,
or both.
(c) Any person who shall receive’ any compensation,
rebate, or reward, or shall enter into any conspiracy, col¬
lusion, or agreement, express or implied, with intent to de¬
fraud the Corporation or wrongfully and unlawfully to defeat
its purposes, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not more
than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Sec. 219. All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed, so far as they affect the operations con¬
templated by this title.
Sec. 220. If any provision of this title or the appfication
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the title and the application
of such prowsion to persons or circumstances other than those
to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 221. This title shall be liberally construed to carry
out the purposes of Congress to provide for the disposition
of and make needful rules and regulations respecting Govern¬
ment properties entrusted to the Corporation, provide for
the national defense, improve navigation, control destructive
floods, and promote interstate commerce and general welfare.
Sec. 222. This title may be cited as the “Missouri
Valley Authority Act.”
V*'
o
HJ
Cu
t-j
Cu
65-
(P
p
o'
p
p
i
w
H
P
tc
to
o
^S.
Sc*
p
rt-
<
C)
Cu
P
o
S'
*d
*-s
(P
o
H
P
CD
o
o
o
o
»
ci“
I-S
o
b‘
P Ot
V
P-
O t:"
o
B
P
13
P-
B n‘
CO
O
PH 13 C:
O B
B B ®
!-<•
^ I 8
- ” i-
'3 f= S'
tr-! S S-
P- O
HJ tT- !-•
HO p 2
O 3 13
CO CT
CP O O ,
CO I-J Hb
• CO
»-t. ^
^ rp
O H-
•-5 I
b:§
3 ^
CO 5
CP P-*
h—i
HH r+“
p= °
3 O'
Jli o
o
tp s
!?! ^
C5 ^
S cr
w
cc
>
s:!
wo¬
rn
2
D
PI
2
H
78th CONGEESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 22 (legislative day, November 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Maloney to tlie bill (H. E.
4485) authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes, viz :
1 On page 3, line 8, of the printed committee amendment
j
2 as modified inserting section 5, strike out the words ‘‘de-
3 manded or purchased within three years after” and insert
4 ‘‘purchased upon”, so that as amended the proviso would
5 read: ‘^Provided, That unless 90 per centum of the firm
6 power produced at such projects shall be purchased upon
7 completion of construction of such projects, the Secretary
8 of the Interior is authorized to construct transmission lines
9 for the purpose of selling such power at wholesale”.
11-22-44 - D
I2:
0
0
<;
W
S
(1
CL
K
W
K
W
t©
©
to
H-*
(5*
©
<2^
0
»
w
CJ*
p
rt-
©
<
©
r+
P
P
cr
P
©
p
D
CL
tz!
0
S
B
w
e:;
w
p
•©
to
3.
a
M
■S^
©
M
pi
CD
lU
fio M- tl-
P
ti
Ui
i-j
•-j
Pj
. .
0
0
cc
©
f=
i-j
»— '•
0
c^
P
0
>-s
0
tc
l-b
0
g
<-t
HJ
(r»“
EP
P
0
0
!--•
ps
w
•-j • 3
o
o'
(Ti
'T3
2 ==
§ 2
^ O
2 °
l-h O
o p
l-j
o 3.
S:-
CD
CD ►*
>-t w
O
|4^ O
00 IK
Oc CI>
pj
JO O'
d '<!
<r^
^ -i
N
I’P
fi
o
« c^
^ <-N
>
PI
25
D
PI
Z
H
^ a
M
M
X
!»
•
4:^
4^
00
Ul
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
November 22 (legislative day, November 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Langee to the biU (H. E.
4485) authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other pur¬
poses, viz: At the end of the biU insert a new section as
follows :
1 Sec. . (a) There is hereby established an agency of
2 the United States to be known as the Missouri Valley Power
3 Administration, aU of the powers of which shall be exercised
4 by an Administrator, who shall be appointed by the Presi-
5 dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
6 Administrator shall be appointed for a term of three years
7 and shall receive compensation at the rate of $10,000 per
8 annum.
11-22^4 - B
2
1 (b) (1) All electric power generated at the Fort Peck
2 Dam, which is not required in the operation of such dam,
3 shall be delivered to the Administrator for disposition in
4 accordance with the provisions of this section.
5 (2) The Administrator is authorized and directed to
6 transmit and dispose of electric power delivered to him
7 under paragraph (1) of this subsection by sale to con-
8 sumers, either directly or through cooperative associations,
9 at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business
10 principles, the rate schedules to become effective upon con-
11 firmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission.
12 (3) In carrying out the provisions of this section the
18 Administrator shall give preference to consumers in rural
14 areas who are not receiving central station service, and shall
15 construct or acquire such transmission lines and other facili-
16 ties as may be necessary to provide for furnishing electric
II power to all such consumers in as wide an area as can effi-
18 ciently be served. The Administrator shall provide for the
19 furnishing and installation of equipment and appliances to,
20 and the wiring of the premises of, such consumers, at cost
21 upon such terms as may be necessary to provide all such con-
22 sumers a reasonable opportunity to purchase and utilize such
23 electric power.
24 (c) In addition to the powers and duties expressly con-
25 ferred upon the Administrator under this section, he shall
3
1 exercise all of the powers conferred upon the Bureau of
2 Reclamation and the Secretary of the Interior under the
3 provisions of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the com-
4 pletion, maintenance, and operation of the Fort Peck project
5 for navigation, and for other purposes”, approved May 18,
6 1938 (52 Stat. 403), which are not inconsistent with the
7 provisions of this section.
8 (d) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
9 this section the Administrator is authorized, without regard
10 to the civil-service laws and the Classification Act of 1923,
t '
t
11 as amended, to employ and fix the compensation of such
12 attorneys, engineers, and experts, and, subject to the civil-
' .[
13 service laws and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended,
14 such other officers and employees as he deems necessary.
15 (e) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
;l :i .
|16 such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
17 of this section.
a
§
g
W
w
w
to
to
so
C3*
CP
p
o'
CP ^
p
p
Pi
o*
o
*p
l-J
CD
a
tz!
o
<i
H
g
P
K
P
CO
P
o
c/3
P-
P
cr
o
•-S
h- • V
O
P
CP ^
U1
Hb
o
•-s
Eas
o
o
o
c
p
(rt“
»-5
O
P
P
P-
O
Hb
o
(TP
P
C
h-—
I— *•
o
o
t— <
c/3
w
3
<r+“
a>
3
a.
(D
W o'
• CD
hf»- l-rt
00 3
o
S- o-
o'
VJ
o
l-j
o
•-!
W
?=
3
3
CTQ
CP
o
o
p
w
i-S
P
O
tr*
>
!z!
Q
H
ts
O
S"
CD
>
PI
z
D
PI
Z
H
00
H
to td
mP
rq
O
i
I
72
72
P
O
4^
00
oi
78th congress ¥ ¥ A A r> ^
2.SKSS.O. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 22 (legislative clay, November 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Langer to the bill (H. R.
4485) autborizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes
viz : At the end of the bill insert a new section as follows :
1 Sec. . (a) In addition to the primary purposes for
2 which the Fort Peck Dam project was authorized under the
3 provisions of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1028) ,
4 and the Act of May 18, 1938 (52 Stat. 403), such dam
5 shall be used for the storage of water for the purposes of
6 reclamation of arid and semiarid lands and lands of Indian
reservations.
8 (b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and
9 directed, in accordance with the provisions of the reclamation
11-2^4 - C
2
1 laws (1)' to construct, operate, and maintain such pumping
2 plants, canals, and other appurtenant works and facilities
3 as may be necessary to provide for the delivery of such
4 stored waters for reclamation purposes, (2) to enter into
5 repayment contracts, and other necessary contracts, with
6 State agencies, authorities, associations, persons, and cor-
7 porations, either public or private, and (3) to acquire by
‘ 8 proceedings in eminent domain, or otherwise, aU lands,
9 rights-of-way, water rights, and other property necessary to
10 carry out the purposes of this section.
11 (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
12 such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
13 of this section.
/
k
o
Oi
<P
>s
o
Cb
o
P3
W
H
Pi
to
to
(h
o 'S.
P so
ts- "
O' <5
2 !“
(P i=i
fB
D
&
!z!
o
(P PJ
"d ic
n H
a> M
o, o
S S O
i-S
o
o
o
CD
I-S
t-b
CD
CD
O
Hh
(V
o
•-J
P
tti
C
5’
o
p
cr
3
3
CP
o
o
3
o
o'
CP
iT-j
|3
o
p ^
p ^
£- p-
o
'-i
!?r
I-S
o
o'
^<1
B:g
>
n
z
D
n
2
H
S
M ■
U1
x:
pi
•
4^.
00
Oil
i
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8431
H. R, 2688. An act for the relief of Clar¬
ence H. Miles, Mrs. Mollie Miles, and Hardy
Miles, a minor;
H. R. 2827. An act for the relief of the
estate of Ida M. Rutherford;
H. R. 3017. An act for the relief of Hubert
McMahon and the legal guardian of Barbara
McMahon;
H. R. 3138. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Bertha Macklin;
H. R. 3191. An act for the relief of Lillian
Hill;
H. R. 3192. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Bertha Grantham;
H. R. 3218. An act for the relief of Enid M.
Albertson;
H. R. 3279. An act for the relief of Clarenc^
G. Doelllng and Doris J. (McNeil) Doelling; •
H. R. 3285. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Rose Poisson; ^
H. R. 3302. An act for the relief of Eleanor
PaiSiinson;
H. R. 3323. An act for the relief of Mrs.
William M. Watson and R. H. Pi'ice;
H. R. 3369. An act for the relief of Harry
V. Hearn;
H. R. 3400. An act for the relief of LaVerne
Whipple;
H. R. 3414. An act for the relief of Edward
C, Robbins;
H. R. 3465. An act for the relief of Archie
Berberian, Kurken Berberian, and Mi's. Os-
getel Berberian;
H. R. 3484. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Pearl W. Peterson;
H. R. 3584. An act for the relief of Elsie
Hawke;
H. R. 3630. An act for the relief of Peter
Paul Bade, Charles C. Cox, H. Forest Haugh,
and Luther M. Durst;
H. R. 3645. An act for the relief of Mary
Agnes Lichtefeld Droppelman;
H. R. 3678. A?i act for the relief of Floyd E.
and Lena Mae Drummond;
H. R. 3727. An act for the relief of the legal
guardian of Violet DeGroot;
H. R. 3814. An act for the relief of M. Sen¬
ders & Co.;
H. R. 3852. An act for the relief of the O. S.
Stapley Co.;
H. R. 3880. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Anna Zukas;
H. R. 3881. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Anna Chandler;
H. R. 3928. An act for the relief of James
LeRoy Eden;
H. R, 3931. An act for the relief of the
estate of Dr. A. D. Gibson;
H. R. 3995. An act for the relief of Walter
Lundmark;
H. R. 3996. An act for the relief of F. L.
Gause and the legal guardian of Rosalind
and Helen Gause, minors;
H. R. 4014. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Ruby Wlnsch;
H. R.4016. An act for the relief of John
Casey and Marie Casey;
H. R. 4036. An act for the relief of John
H. Bonney, the legal guardian of Daniel R.
Bonney, a minor;
H. R. 4038. An act for the relief of Joseph
W. Steel;
H. R. 4049. An act for the relief of Alfred
F. Ross;
H. R. 4080. An act for the relief of certain
former employees of the United States Court
for China;
H. R. 4105. An act for the relief of Ira
Cannon;
H. R. 4111. An act for the relief of Louis
Beckham;
H. R. 4125. An act for the relief of Kelly
Hobbs;
H. R. 4144. An act for the rrtief of Brig.
Gen. Louis J. Fortier;
H. R. 4200. An act for the relief of William
Weber;
H. R. 4212. An act for the relief of Robert
Rowe and Mary Rowe;
H. R. 4213. An act for the relief of Karl
Lungstras;
H. R. 4248. An act for the relief of the legal
guardian of Louis Cinlglio;
H. R. 4305. An act for the relief of Henry
Clay Walker;
H. R.4309. An act for the relief of Rosa
Lee Foreman;
H. R. 4322. An act for the relief of the
estate of Floyd M. Adair, deceased;
H. R. 4331. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Florence Armstrong;
H.R. 4333. An act for the relief of Bertha
LeFrancq;
H. R. 4345. An act for the relief of the
legal guardian of Luther Marcus Smith, a
minor;
H.R. 4363. An act for the relief of Ollie
Brashear Hearldson;
H. R. 4366. An act for the relief of Alex
Wylie, and the estate of James Evans;
• H. R. 4367. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Julia Toler;
H. R. 4380. An act for the relief of Mabelle
E. Olive;
H. R. 4442. An act for the relief of Albert
B. Weaver;
H.R. 4451. An act for the relief of John
McLaughlin, Sr., and John McLaughlin. Jr,
H.R. 4481. An act for the relief of William
H. Crompton;
H. R. 4542. Air act for the relief of Harold
Miller;
H. R. 4549. An act for the relief of Sandy
C. Brown;
H. R. 4588. An act for the relief of Robert
L. Whlddon;
H.R. 4593. An act for the relief of Tlromas
R. Clark;
H.R. 4629. An act for the relief of Ludwig
Wolf;
H.R. 4631. An act for the relief of John L.
MacNeil;
H. R. 4674. An act for the relief of the es¬
tate of Everette Maxwell; the estate of Red¬
man P. Maddux; and the legal guardian of
Elmer Massa, a minor;
H. R. 4703. An act for the relief of the es¬
tate of Annie Brown;
H, R. 4736, An act for the relief of Dr. H. L.
Klotz:
H, R. 4786. An act for the relief of the es¬
tate of Kimball Lee Beckner;
H. R. 4815. An act for the relief of the Board
of County Commissioners of Volusia County,
Fla.;
H.R. 4817. An act for the relief of Wilfred
T. Plant, Sr.;
H.R. 4878. An act for the relief of the es¬
tate of Emma B. Fleet, deceased;
H. R. 4921. An act for the relief of Dr. J.
Sims Norman;
H. R. 4927. An act for the relief of Francis
D. Stovall. Jr.;
H. R. 4929, An act for the relief of Lt.
James H. Clark and Eleanor Clark;
H. R. 4962. An act for the relief of Jessie
Springsteen and John Springsteen;
H. R. 5034. An act for the relief of the estate
of Francis A. Collins;
H. R. 5048. An act for the relief of the estate
of Cecile H. Burgett, deceased;
H. R. 5060. An act for the relief of Clyde
H. Palmer; estate of Lola J. Palmer; legal
guardian of Margie Joan Palmer, a minor;
and
H. R. 5167. An act to confer jurisdiction
upon the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of South Carolina to
hear, determine, and render judgment upon
the claim of the board of trustees of the
Saunders Memorial Hospital; to the Commit¬
tee on Claims.
H. R. 4737. An act for the relief of W. A.
Smoot, Inc.; ordered to be placed on the cal¬
endar.
RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS—
AMENDMENTS
Mr. RADCLIPPE submitted three
amendments intended to be proposed by
him to the bill (H. R. 3961) authorizing
the construction, repair, and preserva¬
tion of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes, which
were ordered to lie on the table and to be
printed.
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS—
AMENDMENTS
Mr. LANGER submitted two amend¬
ments intended to be proposed by him to
the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes, which were ordered
to lie on the table and to be printed.
Mr. MURRAY (for himself and Mr.
Lancer) submitted an amendment in¬
tended to be proposed by them jointly, to
House bill 4485, supra, which was ordered
to lie on the table and to be printed.
Mr. GURNEY (for Mr. Bridges) sub¬
mitted an amendment intended to be Pro¬
posed by Mr. Bridges to House bill 4485,
supra, which was ordered to lie on the
table and to be printed.
THE DEVELOPMENT OP FOREIGN COM¬
MERCE-ADDRESS BY HON. JAMES A.
PARLEY
[Mr. GEORGE asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an address re¬
garding domestic trade and foreign com¬
merce, delivered by Hon. James A. Farley
at the third general session of the Thirty-
First National Foreign Trade Convention, in
New York, October 11, 1944, which appears
in the Appendix.]
MISSOURI VALLEY AUTHORITY— STATE¬
MENT BY JAMES G. PATTON
[Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record a statement re¬
garding the development of the Missouri
Valley, issued by James G. Patton, president
of the National Farmers Union, which ap¬
pears in the Appendix.]
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER
BASIN— ADDRESS BY JONATHAN W.
DANIELS
[ Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an address on
the subject of the development of the Mis¬
souri River Basin by Jonathan W. Daniels,
which will appear hereafter in the Appendix ]
IT IS FOR US, THE LIVING — ADDRESS BY
JOHN W. FESLER'_
[Mr. WILLIS asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an address en¬
titled “It Is for Us, the Living,” by John W.
Pesler, at the annual observance of dedi¬
cation day by the Indiana Commandery of
the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, at
Foster Hall, Indianapolis, Ind., November 19,
1944, which appears in the Appendix.]
TREATY OR AGREEMENT?— EDITORIAL
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST
[Mr. MEAD asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an editorial from
the Washington Post, entitled “Treaty or
Agreement?” which appears in the Ap¬
pendix.]
THE NAVY’S WAR ACCOUNT
[Mr. MEAD asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record a pamphlet en¬
titled “The Navy’s War Account,” which ap¬
pears in the Appendix.]
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
8432
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 22
The VICE PRESIDENT. The pend- ■
ing question carried over from yester¬
day is on agreeing to the amendment
proposed by the senior Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Barkley] inserting in
the committee amendment on page 1,
line 5, after the word “improvements”,
the words “provided for in this act.”
[Putting the question.] The vote seems
to be a tie.
Mr. BARKLEY. I ask for a division.
There are more than two Senators in
the Chamber, and I hope Senators will
vote.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Those in
favor of the amendment offered by the
Senator from Kentucky will rise.
Mr. VANDENBERG. I suggest the ab¬
sence of a quorum.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll„ and
the following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Austin
Bailey
Ball
Bankhead
Barkley
BUbo
Brewster
Brooks
Buck
Burton
Bushfield
Butler
Byrd
Capper
Caraway
Chandler
Clark, Idaho
Clark, Mo.
Connally
Cordon
Davis
Downey
Ellender
Ferguson
George
Gerry
Gillette
Green
Guffey
Gurney
Hatch
Hayden
HUl
Jenner
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Kilgore
La Follette
Langer
Lucas
McClellan
McFarland
McKellar
Maloney
Maybank
Mead
Milllkln
Murray
Nye
O’Daniel
O’Mahoney
Overton
Pepper
Radcliffe
Bevercomb
Reynolds
Robertson
Russell
Shlpstead
Taft
Thomas, Idaho
Thomas, Okla.
Tunnell
Tydings
Vandenberg
Walsh, Mass.
Walsh N..J.
Weeks
Wheeler
•Wherry
White
Wiley
Willis
Mr. HILL. I announce that the Sena¬
tor from Virginia [Mr. Glass] is absent
from the Senate because of illness.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Chavez] and the Senator from Tennessee
[Mr. Stewart] are absent because of ill¬
ness in their families.
The Senators from Nevada [Mr. Mc-
Carran and Mr. Scrugham] and the Sen¬
ator from Utah [Mr. Murdock] are de¬
tained on offlcial business for the Senate.
The Senator from Florida [Mr. An¬
drews], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. Eastland], the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Thomas], the Senator from Mis¬
souri [Mr. Truman], the Senator from
New York [Mr. Wagner] and the Senator
from Washington [Mr. Wallgren] are
necessarily absent.
Mr. WHERRY. The following Sena¬
tors are necessarily absent:
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. Bridges], the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. Hawkes], the Senator from
Oklahoma [Mr. Moore], the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. Reed], and the Sena¬
tor from Iowa [Mr. Wilson].
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hol¬
man] is absent because of illness in his
family.
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
DanaherI is absent on important public
business.
Mr. WHITE. I desire to announce that
the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
Tobey] is necessarily absent because of
illness.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Seventy-four
Senators have answered to their names.
A quorum is present.
A division has been requested on the
amendment of the Senator from Ken¬
tucky [Mr. Barkley] to the committee
amendment on page 1.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, if I
may be permitted to, I should like to
make a brief explanation. The pending
amendment is the one I offered yester¬
day, to which no objection was made by
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Over-
ton] in charge of the bill. My amend¬
ment simply limits the declaration of
policy to the projects carried in this bill,
and does not attempt to project the dec¬
laration of policy over into the futu
I hope the amendment will be agreed
We debated at some length in the Senate
yesterday whether this Congress or any
Congress had the power to bind another
Congress, and, of course, we all agreed
that one Congress cannot bind another
Congress; but I felt that, in order that
no one should receive the impression
that we were trying to bind future Con¬
gresses, the amendment should be adopt¬
ed limiting this declaration of policy to
the projects set out in the pending bill.
It is my understanding that the Senator
from Louisiana does not object to that
amendment.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. VANDENBERG. It seemed to me
in the first instance that the amend¬
ment was quite needless and futile, but
inasmuch as it has been offered, if it were
now rejected, the impression might be
created that we were trying to extend
our jurisdiction further than we have
power to do.
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes; that is true. All
I am trying to do by my amendment is
to prevent the impression from being
created that we are trying to place an¬
other Congress under the moral obliga¬
tion to extend a policy, which is some¬
thing we ca-nnot do.
The VICE PRESIDENT. A division
has been requested on the amendment
■ of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Barkley] to the committee amendment.
On a division the amendment to the
arnendment was agreed to.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
now is on agreeing to the committee
amendment as amended.
The amendment as amended was
agreed to.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will state the next amendment passed
over. _
I'hT'CHiEF Cleril Oh ^ge 4, after
line 13, it is proposed to insert:
Sec. 5. Electric power and energy -
Mr. BARKLEY. Just a moment. The
amendment just agreed to was passed
over yesterday at the request of the Sen¬
ator from Montana [Mr. Wheeler].
Mr. OVERTON. The one we just
agreed to was passed over until today.
Mr. BARKLEY. That is correct. I
think the Senator from Montana did not
realize that we were voting on the
amendment which he asked to go over.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, I did
not understand that the Senate was vot¬
ing to agree to the entire amendment.^
I do not think that the amendment of-^
fered by the Senator from Kentucky to’
the committee amendment which has
just been agreed to, changes the effect of
the committee amendment very much,
but it does apply to the pending bill. I
have no objection to the Senator’s
amendment insofar as it applies to the
provision with respect to flood control,
but it seems to me the amendment goes
further than that and tries to set up a
policy for the future with respect to rec¬
lamation and irrigation projects.
It was stated yesterday, as I under¬
stood, that, while it was not felt that a
provision \/ith respect to irrigation and
reclamation should be contained in the
bill, nevertheless such a provision was
placed in the bill at the request of the
Bureau of Reclamation. I understand
now that when the bill came from the
House it did not contain a provision with
respect to irrigation and reclamation,
but that the Bureau of Reclamation
asked for certain amendments to the
bill. Some of the provisions for which it
asked were placed in the bill, but cer¬
tainly not all the provisions asked by the
Bureau of Reclamation were placed in
the bill.
Mr. OVERTON. My recollection is,
Mr. President, that the amendment with
respect to irrigation was suggested by the
Bureau of Reclamation. The amend¬
ment dealing with power, that is the sale
of power and the distribution of power,
was modified in the first draft of the bill,
and has been since modified by the com¬
mittee amendment which was submitted
yesterday by the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey].
Mr. WHEELER. I talked with a rep¬
resentative of the Department of the In¬
terior this morning, and my information
is — I may be incorrectly informed — that
the Department feels that the provision
dealing with reclamation and irrigation
does not go as far as the Department
would like, because it seems to throw the
doors open with respect to the use of
water, and does not eliminate the specu¬
lative features which they had suggested
be dealt with, nor does it try to limit the
use of water to small farms. The whole
policy of reclamation in the past — and
[ hope it will always continue in the
future — has been that v.’hen the Gov-
ei-nment establishes a reclamation and
irrigation project, it is not for the big
I farmers, but for the purpose of creating
/ small farms and homes for those who
wish to operate small, farms for the pur¬
pose of making a living.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. WHEELER. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. I believe the Senator
is referring to the Central Valley au¬
thority question, and not to the broad
amendment with respect to irrigation.
The Elliott amendment, which was in¬
serted in the House, with reference to the
Central Valley, provided that the 160-
acre limitation should not apply to the
Central Valley Authority. That provi¬
sion was stricken out by the Commerce
Committee. But that relates only to the
Central Valley. I believe that the com¬
mittee struck it out because it was
thought that that was a matter on which
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
843a^
we ought not to pass, but that the Com¬
mittee on Irrigation and Reclamation
should pass on the recommendation.
That was largely the reason, although
not exclusively the reason.
Mr. WHEELER. It seems to me that
we ought not to establish a permanent
future policy for irrigation and reclama¬
tion without the limitations which have
heretofore been in the Reclamation Act.
At this time I shall not oppose the first
section on that basis, but I wish to have
it clearly understood that, so far as I am
concerned, I am not for irrigation and
reclamation merely for the benefit of a
few big farmers. The purpose should be
to create homes for small independent
farmers, so that they can make a living.
When the war is over, a great many men
now in the service will wish to establish
homes for themselves.
Section 8 of the bill provides in part
as follows:
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior that any dam
and reservoir project operated under the di¬
rection of the Secretary of War may be uti¬
lized for irrigation purposes, the Secretary of
the Interior is authorized to construct, op¬
erate, and maintain, under the provisions of
the Federal reclamation laws (act of June
17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory
thereof or supplementary thereto) , such addi¬
tional works in connection therewith as he
may deem necessary for irrigation piu'poses.
Under those conditions, first of all, a
policy would be established under which
the Bureau of Reclamation must go be¬
fore the Secretary of War, hat in hand,
to ask for approval of a project. Before
a reclamation project could be con¬
structed, the sanction of the Secretary of
War would be necessary.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. WHEELER. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. I should like to read
Into the Record what the Secretary of
the Interior requested in that connec¬
tion, and then it can be compared with
what the committee did. This is the
provision recommended by the Secre¬
tary of the Interior:
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior —
That is the “hat in hand” argument.
Referring to the “hat in hand” argu¬
ment, let me say that I do not believe
that Secretary Ickes would take off his
hat to anyone,
Mr. WHEELER. That is probably
fortunate.
Mr. OVERTON. Someone must have
control of a dam. If it is a flood-control
or navigation dam, the Secretary of War
has charge of it, and if it is an irriga¬
tion dam, the Secretary of the Interior
has charge of it. Therefore the recom¬
mendation of the Secretary of the In¬
terior is as follows:
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary of
War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior, that any dam
and reservoir project operated under the
direction of the Secretary of War can be con¬
sistently utilized for Irrigation purposes, the
Secretary of the Interior Is authorized to
construct, operate, and maintain, under the
provisions of the Federal reclamation laws
(act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts
amendatory thereof or supplementary
thereto), or under the provisions of other
applicable laws, such additional works In con¬
nection therewith as he may deem necessary
for Irrigation purposes. Such Irrigation works
may be undertaken only after a report and
findings thereon have been made by the
Secretary of the Interior as provided In said
Federal reclamation laws or other applicable
laws; and, within the limits of the water us¬
ers’ repayment ability, such report may be
predicated on the allocation to Irrigation of
an appropriate portion of the cost of struc¬
tures and facilities used for Irrigation and
other purposes. Dams and reservoirs oper¬
ated under the direction of the Secretary of
War may be utilized hereafter for irrigation
purposes only in conformity with the provi¬
sions of this section, but the foregoing re¬
quirement shall not prejudice lawful uses
now existing,
I do not believe there is any material
alteration of that provision.
Mr. WHEELER. I believe the Senator
is correct.
Mr. OVERTON. I think the Secretary
of the Interior is satisfied with this
amendment.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mi’. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. WHEELER. I yield.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Let me invite the
attention of the Senator to the language
of the amendment proposed on behalf of
a number of western Senators. '1 have
not had an opportunity to consult with
the Senator from Montana since this
amendment was redrafted. If he will
look on page 8 of the amendment, he will
find there a new section 8 which I am
persuaded will be quite satisfactory to
the Army engineers as well as to the
Bureau of Reclamation. I hope that be¬
fore the day is over an opportunity will
be presented for us to discuss this amend¬
ment with the Senator from Louisiana.
However, I wish to invite the Senator’s
attention to the language which appears
on page 8 of the proposed amendment,
beginning in line 21. This amendment
was submitted bn behalf of a group of
western Senators, of whom the Senator
from Montana is one. On page 8, be¬
ginning in line 21, I believe he wiU find
that this matter is adequately dealt with.
Mr. WHEELER. I thank the Senator
from Wyoming.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk wilS
state the next amendment which has!
been passed over. '
The amendment was read, as follows:
Amend section 5 by striking out all the
language after the word “cooperatives” and
the period on page 4, line 25, and ending on
page 5, line 7, and insert in lieu thereof the
following :
"The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
for the complete coordination of such power
and energy with other power developments,
both private and public, in the afea contigu¬
ous with such projects. It shall be stipulated
in connection with any sale that any and all
savings realized by the purchasers shall be
passed on under Federal regulation where no
State regulation exists to the consuming pub¬
lic: Provided, That unless 90 percent of the
firm power produced at such projects shall be
demanded or purchased within 3 years after
completion of construction of such projects,
the Secretary of the Interior is autliorized to
construct transmission lines for the purpose
of selling such power at wholesale.”
So that section 5 as modified will read as
follows :
“Sec. 6. Electric power and energy gener¬
ated at reservoir projects under the control
of the War Department and in the opinion
of the Secretary of War not required in the
operation of such projects shall be delivered
to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall
transmit and dispase of such power and
energy in such manner as to encourage the
most widespread use thereof at the lowest
possible rates to consumers consistent with
sound business principles, the rate schedules
to become effective upon confirmation and
approval by the Federal Power Commission.
Preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives. The sale of such electric
power as may be generated at reservoir proj¬
ects shall be made at the point of produc¬
tion, without special privilege or discrimi¬
nation, so as to provide for the complete
coordination of such power and energy with
other power developments, both private and
public, in the area contiguous with such
projects. It shall ' be stipulated in connec¬
tion with any sale that any and all savings
realized by the purchasers shall be passed
on under Federal regulation where no State
regulation exists, to the consuming public:
Provided, That unless 90 percent of the firm
power produced at such projects shall be
demanded or purchased within 3 years after
comnletion of construction of such projects,
the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
construct transmission lines for the purpose
of selling such power at wholesale.”
The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques¬
tion is on agreeing to the committee
amendment, as modified.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena¬
tor from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, let
me make the observation that the pend¬
ing amendment is a committee amend¬
ment being handled by the senior Sena¬
tor from North Carolina [Mr. B.-hley],
who is now present.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, let me
inquire whether the Senator from North
Carolina intends to make a statement in
regard to the amendment.
Mr. BAILEY. I will make a statement
about it if one is necessary.
Mr. BARKLEY. Probably I should
have read at this point a letter from the
Secretary of the Interior which I have
just received in regard to the amend¬
ment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the clerk read from the desk a
letter addressed to me by the Secretary
of the ‘Interior, discussing the so-called
Bailey amendment, and also a memoran¬
dum which he attaches to the letter, in
regard to the flood-control bill.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the clerk will read as requested.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Washington, D. C. November 22, 1944.
Hon. Alben W. Barklet,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator Barkley; My attention ha§~y
been called to the amendment that Senator f
Bailey intends to propose on the Flood Con- I
trol bill (H. R. 4485). That amendment [
would result in a fundamental reversal of the .
sound traditional 'TDbliCUiS of the Oougiass
with iBipuut to Lfie yare OI F^efal power,
By restricting the construction of transmis¬
sion facilities, it would place the Government
in a poor bargaining position in the sale of
its power and would permit the private utll-
No. 161 - 2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 22
8434
Ity In the vicinity of each dam to monopolize,
on its own terms, the power produced at the
Federal project. Rather than giving the
customary preference to public agencies and
farmers’ rural electric cooperatives in the
disposition of public power, the effect of
the amendment would be to foreclose these
public and nonprofit agencies from securing
the power. The amendment would therefore
result in lower income to the Federal Govern¬
ment and in higher power rates to the farm¬
ers and other consumers who might other¬
wise be benefited from the Federal power
developments.
The genesis of the proposed Bailey amend¬
ment may be found in the declaration of
water resource policies of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Issued on May 29,
1944, by a committee largely composed of
officials of private power companies and large
mining interests. Declaration No. VI of that
committee called for the pooling of public
and private power along the lines of the
proposed amendment and also stated that
Government power should be sold “at the
point of production.” This was also the
position taken by Governor Bricker in the
recent campaign when he suggested that
Federal power be sold at the busbar.
Disposition of power generated at Govern¬
ment projects under public power policies,
such as sales preference for municipalities
and other public agencies and for farm co¬
operatives, has been a basic tenet of govern¬
mental policy since 1906 when the Congress
first authorized power developments on rec¬
lamation projects. Subsequently, the Con¬
gress has reiterated and extended these poli¬
cies in the Tennessee Valley Authority, Bon¬
neville, and Fort _ Peck Acts and in the
Reclamation laws. I cannot believe that the
Congress will want to overthrow these sound
policies that have been Imbedded in our
laws and have resulted In promoting the
Industrial development of the West and
South and in the protection of the con¬
sumers in those areas. The policy of the
proposed amendment would deprive the ul¬
timate consumer of the benefits of low-cost
electric energy produced at public projects
and would permit their monopoly by a few
private utilities.
I am attaching for your Information a
copy of a memorandum regarding the pro¬
visions of the flood-control bill that relate
generally to the power and irrigation policies
of the Government.
Sincerely yours,
Harold L. Ickes,
Secretary of the Interior.
MEMORANDUM ON FLOOD-CONTROL BILL
The omnibus flood-control bill, H. R. 4485,
as reported by the Senate Committee on
Commerce, authorizes the post-war construc¬
tion of a large number of projects. It has
a serious effect on fundamental Government
power and reclamation policies. Because
these policies are involved, and because the
bill does not authorize immediate construc¬
tion, hasty action is not called for at the
present time, and the implications of the
legislation should be carefully weighed.
Section 5 of the bill, as reported, deals
with the disposition of electric power. While
the clause is not objectionable in itself, it
is less comprehensive and progressive than
comparable clauses in laws previously en¬
acted, such as the Bonneville and T. V. A.
legislation. Furthermore, it is understood
that an attempt will be made to amend
section 5 and completely reverse the progres¬
sive power policies of recent years by virtu¬
ally prohibiting the construction of trans¬
mission lines by the Government. Thus
the Government, which builds the dam and
generates the power, would have to depend
for its disposal wholly on whatever utility
company brought lines to the dam.
Section 8 of the bill, as reported, wisely
Invokes the reclamation laws in the use of
projects for irrigation purposes. However,
the bill as it passed the House contained no
such provision, and in the Senate, it is un¬
derstood, an attempt will be made to amend
or delete section 8. The reclamation policies
of this count-y, in effect for more than 40
years, are designed to encourage family-type
farms and to discourage speculation. They
should not be changed or set aside in the
course of a hurried consideration of a flood-
control bill authorizing projects at some in¬
definite future date.
In section 9 of the bill, as reported, is a
paragraph headed “Connecticut River Basin,”
in which there is a proviso prohibiting the
generation of hydroelectric power at dams in
the Connecticut River Basin. This would
mean that the dams would be so constructed
that opportunities to harness and use a great
amount of power in the Connecticut River
Valley would be forever wasted.
Also in section 9 is a paragraph entitled
“Missouri River Basin.” This paragraph au¬
thorizes construction, and establishes a Mis¬
souri River Commission, in the War De¬
partment, which will plan further naviga¬
tion and flood control projects in the Mis¬
souri Basin. The establishment of such a
commission, and in fact the entire para¬
graph, runs counter to the President’s pro¬
posal for a Missouri Valley Authority. Such
an Authority would have to handle problems
of reclamation, the use of public lands, power
projects, etc., as well as flood control and
navigation, and would be responsible for the
long-range planning for the region. Its
duties would be onerous enough without hav¬
ing the situation muddied by the existence
of other commissions with partial authority
and the authorization of partial plans for
construction, in the formulation of which it
had no voice.
Finally, in section 9, a paragraph headed
“San Joaquin River” authorizes Army con¬
struction of certain projects in California,
on streams flowing into the Central Valley.
’The Central Valley project, aa authorized by
Congress, is operated by the Bureau of Rec¬
lamation; the Bureau has built dams and
Irrigation works, and markets the surplus
power. The present bill changes the pattern.
It puts two different agencies, in two dif¬
ferent departments, at work on a multiple-
purpose project where the utmost coordina¬
tion is essential. Thus the effect of this
section is harmful to good administration.
Furthermore, it would be extremely harmful
were section 8 deleted and sound reclamation
policies disregarded as they were in the bill
as it passed the House.
As the projects authorized by this bill
would not be undertaken until after the war,
there is no need for haste. There is danger
in lightly changing fundamental policies for
the conservation and development of our
resources. Hasty passage of the bill might
seriously hamper and delay every effort to
adopt a sound program of unified develop¬
ment in the great river basins of the country.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, it ap¬
pears that the honored and honorable
Secretary of the Interior does not like
my amendment, and that he does not
like a good many other features of the
pending bill. I think that invites me to
pay my respects to him. I think he is
a very able man and a first-class Sec¬
retary of the Interior. He has conducted
the Department of the Interior for nearly
12 years, and has done so with a great
deal of ability. I think he is a first-class
administrator. But I do not think we
could trust him — of course, I say that
respectfully — in any matter of debate,
or in any controversy in which he should
determine to take a side. He is clearly
a partisan in matters of this type, and I
believe I am safe in saying that he is
something of a crusader. The judgment
of partisans and crusaders is always to
be respected, just as the judgment of
every one else is to be respected; but they
are not, by any means, to be trusted.
I think I may say, without violating the
proprieties, that notwithstanding his
unusual executive ability, his candor —
and I think his honesty — he is the type
of man who always goes to extremes, and
if one gets into a debate with him and
escapes without being called some foul
name, or having some foul motive at¬
tributed to him one way or the other, he
is lucky. That is a frank statement, but
that is my estimate of the Secretary of
the Interior.
I am glad this issue is here. It is a
major issue of national policy. We have
been coming to it for years, but we come
to it now in the ultimate sense. If we
settle it in one way, very clearly the
national policy will be determined in that
way, I should say, forever. If we should
settle it in another way, in the way I
propose to settle it, the national policy
would at any rate be not irrevocable, and
I think it would be constructive.
I submitted this amendment in a sin-'
cere effort to compose very great dif¬
ferences, and to bring about a substan¬
tial policy of live and let live. •
When there were only a few dams here
and there in the country, and we were
not permitted the almost unlimited ex¬
penditures which are now permitted, the
matter was not of any great pressing im¬
portance, and we did not think about the
implications of what we were doing. It
was not necessary to think about them
because they were limited in their conse¬
quences. But we have before us a bill
by which it is proposed to construct
great dams throughout the country over
a long period of years, which would call
for, I believe, approximately a billion
dollars of expenditure, and would be, as
we say, in the interest of flood control.
We have coupled flood control with the
production of power. I have no objection
to that where it is done as an incidental
matter. Flood control comes first. The
argument that our cities and farm lands
ought not to be devastated year after year
by floods if we can possibly prevent it,
appeals to the finest instincts in the
breasts of every one of us. It cannot be
said that we have been successful so far,
but we have set out in that direction.
On that portion of this subject I am
rather committed. I will go far in the
interest of flood control. I will go far
in the matter of appropriations for such
purposes, although I take the opportunity
of saying that I look forward to the un¬
limited expenditure of money in this
country with the greatest of misgivings.
I frequently tliink to myself — I question
if I have heretofore uttered such senti¬
ments in the presence of others — that we
are now entering upon a period of bor¬
rowing and spending which will make
the Hopkins era appear to be an era of
misers.
But I shall have to pass by that sub¬
ject. I shall not discuss it. I throw out
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8435
the suggestion because anyone can see
where we are going. We are learning no
lessons from the past in the matter of
expenditui'e. We have taken the view
that the resources of the Government,
so far as money is concerned, are un¬
limited; that there cannot be any such
thing as too much spending or too much
borrowing, and that national bankruptcy
is by no means possible. On the other
hand, the attitude appears to be that
the more we spend^the richer we shall be,
and the more capable we shall be of
spending. We shall come into the post¬
war period — I hope very soon — with the
impression that merely by the process of
unlimited spending we can create un¬
limited income, unlimited taxes, and un¬
limited revenue. It is an impression so
fallacious that I shall not controvert it
at this time.
We have before us a long list of proj¬
ects intended primarily, as we say, to
control devastating floods. But coupled
with it in most instances would be ex¬
penditures for the purpose of producing
power, and for additions to the dams
called for in the interest of power. The
increases in appropriations necessitated
by the power program would be really
greater than the appropriations called
for in the interest of flood control. Of
course, that was never contemplated by
the Constitution. I shall not argue that
point: it is a matter for our own con¬
science; but I do say that it is a rather
lamentable thing that we should take
the good cause, the necessitous cause of
flood control and build upon that as a
pretext whereby we obviate the consti¬
tutional inhibition and thrust the Fed¬
eral Government into the power field.
Yet, that is the program; it is at hand,
and we have now reached the point
where we are building power dams every¬
where. Whether we build them in the
name of flood control or not makes no
difference, for it appears by every con¬
ception from any angle that the objec¬
tive is the production of electric energy.
We have had some disasters, one of them
as I recall the Pensacola disaster — not
in Florida, but I think in Oklahoma —
wholly consequent upon undertaking to
convert a flood-control proposition into
a power proposition. There have been
other such incidents in Texas.
But, after all, that is not the main
matter that I am driving at. Here it is ;
We have reached the stage in our policy
when we must determine whether we
shall go on into an era of Federal power
universally. Federal electrical power uni¬
versally, or have the division we have
had heretofore.
Now, it will be impossible for the power
companies, that I may refer to now as
private power companies although, of
course, they are all quasi-public corpora¬
tions and are controlled by the utility
commissions of the several States and, to
some extent, by the national authority
under the Federal power laws. But
when I say private power companies I
am speaking of those companies which
have grown up in the last 30 or 40 years
by way of coi’porate organizations, with
subscription to stock, and which operate
as other corporations do, but always sub¬
ject to the regulatory laws of the States
in which they operate. I consider these
power companies to be a real asset to the
coimtry and to the sections in which they
are located.
I realize that the power companies
have been under attack in this country
ever since I have been in the Senate, and,
unfortunately, some of the power com¬
panies conducted ttiemselves so out¬
rageously that they justified the at¬
tack. I refer, of course, to Mr. Insull’s
conduct, but not to him alone, for I
should say there are others. He created
what we call the holding company, and
one holding company upon top of an¬
other, until the Congress had to take
action to get rid of them, and it took
rather- arbitrary action. The whole con¬
sequence of that was that the private
companies fell into a sort of general dis¬
repute, and, under the ordinary opera¬
tions of human nature, many of them
became the objects of public and private
attack. I am afraid that almost un¬
awares we were driven by that process
to an attitude of thinking that private
power companies were bad things any¬
way and ought to be gotten rid of, and
I think that is a part of the program
with which we are dealing here. I do
not subscribe to that at all. I think a
private power company, well conducted
and supervised by its State, its rates reg¬
ulated, as they are regulated in North
Carolina, its activities supervised, as
they are supervised in North Carolina,
is an asset to a State and to the people.
I think that is the first time I have
ever heard that said in the Senate. Most
people just assume that they are as bad
as the Insull operations, which took place
a long time ago and have been cleared
up. Mr. Insull has gone; he has ren¬
dered his final account, and I shall say
nothing about it. But can we say that
all that has been done justifies the Amer¬
ican Government and the Senate, as a
part of it, in undertaking now a policy
which will inevitably strike down all the
power companies, in which event we
would have to substitute a national power
system.
In the first place, we have always had
in America the doctrine of free enter¬
prise, and that doctrine has been revived
in recent months to a greater extent than
I had hoped at one time was possible. I
think I will say something about that.
I am for free enterprise, not for the
sake of free enterprise, but I am for free
enterprise because we cannot have a free
country without free enterprise. It is a
keystone in the arch of American lib¬
erty.
I hear a good deal lately about “four
freedoms.” I have at least 44 freedoms,
and I am equally attached to all 44, and
do not intend to take four and let them
eclipse the others. One of my freedoms
is freedom of enterprise. That does not
mean freedom to commit fraud; it does
not mean freedom to oppress people; it
does not mean freedom to take extor¬
tionate profits; but after all, it means
freedom — freedom to invest money, free¬
dom to create a business activity, free¬
dom to conduct it within the law and
with a fair regard to the welfare of your
fellow men. But If we go ahead with
this policy as we have been doing, some
of us consciously, I fear, and some of us
unawares, if we go on much further, if
we pass this bill without such a provision
as I have suggested, I believe we will then
pass rapidly into the period of Federal
power. Federal control, and at least, so
far in the first instance as the produc¬
tion and sale of power is concerned, we
will extinguish free enterprise.
Now let us go from that to the next
point. If we extinguish free enterprise
at that point and substitute Federal
operation and Federal power I make bold
to say that then we place the Federal
Government in position to extinguish all
other enterprise, for if I supply your
house or your city or your industry or
your factory with power and I am the
government, I am also a tyrant; and I
do not think the tyrants in ancient days
had the power that the Federal Govern¬
ment would have if we should destroy
the present private institutions and put
ourselves to the necessity of establishing
an all -controlling Federal system of
power. The power of taxation would
be involved. The Federal Government
could make such rates as it pleased, and
turn the profits over to the Govern¬
ment. It would have the power to kill
and make alive. It could establish one
rate for one section and another for an¬
other, one rate for one individual and
another for another. I am unwilling to
move into that field.
I realize that the Federal Government
is growing in its centralization by leaps
and bounds. I sometimes think it is
nothing on earth but the long processes
of the ages, that all governments tend to
centralize and aggrandize their power.
But" really, Mr. President, we had hoped,
when we founded this Government, to
avoid all those gross mistakes of the past,
and erect here a fabric and a structure
in which the Central Government would
never have the power to control as the
aristocracies and the kingdoms of the
Old World did. Yet the same tendency
moves within the breast of the American
people that was moving in England in
the days of Henry VIII, that moved in
Rome under Julius Caesar, and almost
into full flower under Augustus.
I often think that the men who wrote
our Constitution and framed the char¬
acter of this Government — I know I am
telling the truth when I say it — had
studied governments of all ages, and they
were determined to avoid the grave mis¬
takes that had brought about the fall of
the greatest of empires and the collapse
of all the little nations. They sought to
create a system in which there could be
no aristocracy of power, no aristocracy
of right.
I take much interest in the fact that
Gibbons’ Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire was published, in its first volume,
in 1787. Our Constitution was framed
about the same time and was finished in
1789. There is no question that that was
what Jefferson was thinking about, no
question that that was what Hamilton
was thinking about, no question that that
was what Ben Franklin was thinking
about. I shall not go into that; it is an
old story. I do not think there is any
question but that Alexander Hamilton,
with that great brain of his, was saying,
8436
November 22
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
“All right; this is a dream, but it will
never amount to anything until we have
a centralized government.” He had
looked at the history of other govern¬
ments. He was attached to the idea of
federalism. He is even charged with
wishing to make George Washington
king. If he could be living now Alex¬
ander Hamilton would say, “All right; it
is being worked out as I had hoped it
w'ould be. We have the great, all-
powerful central government I desired,
and I am sorry I wasted my breath trying
to bring it about sooner.”
If we enact the proposed legislation
without my amendment and leave the
matter to the tender mercies of Mr. Ickes
and those associated with him, we are
going to have in the field of power pre¬
cisely a degree of centralization which
will extinguish anything like free enter¬
prise in the power business, and I think
will threaten to extinguish free enter¬
prise in all the other fabric which is de¬
pendent, of course, upon power. We
would place in the hands of the Federal
Government, not a political, but an in¬
dustrial sceptre which would dominate
everything in America.
Mr. President, I am against that. I
wish to stand here on the threshhold of
this process and do what I can to pre¬
vent it, and if I can do nothing to prevent
it, I could die more happy thinking that
I would be remembered in the day of
disaster as one who did stand to resist it.
Some may think I am theorizing. I
am not theorizing. The proposition is to
build power dams. Let due regard be
had for the fact that they are also put
forward as flood-control agencies. The
proposition is to build power dams
throughout the country, whether power
is needed or not, and then to permit the
Federal Government to sell the power in
competition with private companies. It
is said, that is a fair game. I think it is
not a fair game. It is destruction. It is
practically, I should say, immoral; it is
so unfair.
I should have to defend myself for
making that statement. But let us as¬
sume that here at Washington a dani is
built on the Potomac to prevent floods,
and it creates so many hundred million
kilowatt-hours of power, and there is a
private company here. I suppose there
is one; I do not know, but let us assume
there is one. Let us assume that from
that dam we transmit the power into
Washington and sell it, either wholesale
or retail. Then we have put the existing
company out of business.
Mr. President, if you want to know why
I say that I can tell you why. The Fed¬
eral power dam gets its money free, its
capital investment comes free. The
money is borrowed, borrowed by the Fed¬
eral Government. The Government pays
interest, but the Federal power institu¬
tion pays none, so that it gets its money
interest-free.
But that is not the worst of it. Power
companies in North Carolina pay a 6 per¬
cent franchise tax on their gross receipts,
representing quite a source of revenue
to the State, and a considerable burden
on such companies, competing with one
which does not have to pay the 6 percent.
If that were all the story, one might get
along and tide over with it, and postpone
his decision. But the private power com¬
pany pays income taxes to the Federal
Government on top of the other taxes.
That is 40 percent of the profits. And
on topnf that it pays its property taxes.
So that the Government-endowed com¬
pany gets its money free, it is free of
taxes, and yet it is put into the field of
competition with tlfe company which is
operating as a private institution, paying
its taxes, and under regulation by the
State. I do not think I would undertake
to run a business under such circum¬
stances. I know that I would not call
upon people to buy stock in a company
under such circumstances. The Federal
Government would have an advantage of
at least 30 percent in the competitive
market.
It might be said that it would be in
order then for the private power com¬
pany to reduce its rates to the level of
those of the Government-owned com¬
pany. The private power company
could not do that without going into
bankruptcy within a year, and if it should
not reduce its rates, the consumer would
buy where he could obtain power at the
lowest rates, and the private power com¬
pany would go into bankruptcy.
That, Mr. President, is the situation
with which we are faced and that is what
we are dealing with here. Unless we
determine now upon a policy of live and
let live, there will be in this country
general destruction which will be very
far reaching. I think it will go beyond
the power companies and into all other
industries, because there would be erected
here in Washington an enormous and
almost inestimable power. That is
what has actuated me.
Mr. Ickes says that the Chamber of
Commerce of the United States did
something, and had taken a position
similar to mine. I just heard Mr. Ickes’
letter read at the desk. The chamber
of commerce did not communicate with
me about the matter. Mr. Ickes said
that Governor Bricker had taken the
same view. Well, who is Governor
Bricker? He is one of the ablest Gov¬
ernors in America. He was elected Gov¬
ernor of Ohio three times in a row. I
do not think it was at all to its dis¬
credit that his party nominated him to
be its candidate for Vice President. I
myself think he is a very able man and
worthy to be named as nominee for that
position. Governor Bricker is assumed
to be for my amendment. I never heard
from him in my life. I saw him but once
before he came to Washington to attend
the inauguration 4 years ago. Governor
Bricker’s stand is sprung into the situa¬
tion because everybody knows about it.
Well, I have paid my respects to my
dear friend the Secretary of the Interior,
but I should add that that sort of thing,
is perfectly characteristic of him. He
cannot help it, and I forgive him on the
ground that he cannot help it. I think I
might preach a little sermon to the Sen¬
ate on that subject. The Lord’s prayer,
of which I would always speak rever¬
ently, contains the expression —
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
those who trespass against us.
1 think the true rendering of that is —
Forgive us cur trespasses, as we did forgive
those who trespassed against us.
I was discussing that with a minister
some years ago, and I hope I will not ap¬
pear to be pedantic if I quote him as
saying that the last “forgive” in the
phrase “as we forgive” is in the Greek in
the aorist tense, which means “did for¬
give.” At any rate, I have my own inter¬
pretation of that, because when we had
under consideration the question of the
debts of foreign nations back yonder
in 1931 and the question of forgiving
those debts came up, I considered that
passage of Scripture, because one ren¬
dering of it is;
Forgive us our debts as we - are forgiving
to those who are indebted to us.
I remember I spent one entire Sun¬
day afternoon digging into my books.
It happens that my father w'as a minis¬
ter; and my grandfather was a minister,
and I have quite a collection of theologi¬
cal works which I inherited from them.
I am sorry I did not inherit much of
their piety, but I got something from
their books and their examples. I spent
that Sunday afternoon trying to find out
whether there was anything in the
Lord’s Prayer that would move me to
forgive the debts owing this country by
other countries. I came to this conclu¬
sion, and it has abided with me. The
expression in the Lord’s Prayer means
to make allowances for others with re¬
spect to those deeds which they seem
incapable of avoiding doing. Forgive
them with respect to their temptations
which they do not have within them¬
selves the power to resist. It does not
mean to forgive a man who owes me $10,
and not collect the debt. But it does
mean that if an individual owes you $10,
and he cannot possibly pay it, but has
made an honest effort to pay it, he
should be forgiven. I think it means
that if a friend of yours simply by na¬
ture is quarrelsome and offensive, and
you feel that he would bite you if you
get into difficulty with him, you should
look into the situation, and see if that
is his nature. If he has been that way
always and is incurable, forgive him.
We should make allowances for others
as they make allowances for us. As for
myself, I expect the Almighty to forgive
me with respect to all those things that
were too strong for me. If someone in¬
sults me and I get into a fight on the
spur of the moment, if I cannot resist it,
if something just takes hold of me, I
think the Lord’s recording angel would
blot that out and say, “Well, we could
not expect him to hold his peace under
those circumstances. He is just that
sort of a fellow, and we will call it even.”
That, Mr. President, is enough for my
remarks about Mr. Ickes. I do not object
to his statement. I simply wish to exon¬
erate myself. I had no communication
of any kind from Governor Bricker, but
if I had I would not have been ashamed
of it. I think very highly of him. I think
a man who has been elected governor of
his State three times in a row should
command the respect of the universe.
I have no objection to Mr. Ickes under¬
taking to attach this proposal to the
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
chamber of commerce. I will take an
oath that I never heard of any such thing
before Mr. Ickes’ letter was read at the
desk. I simply say that that is the way
my dear friend Ickes does things. If he
can put you in a bad light, or put a piece
of legislation in a bad light or in such a
position that folks suspect you of low-
down motives, he thinks he has won an
argument. I do not think he has done so
at all. I think he has lowered himself in
the estimation of reasonable people.
I say that in all respect to him. He and
I are good friends. I went down to see
him not long ago and took lunch with
him, and I think he is a pretty good
executive, but a mighty poor talker. I
would not trust him to lead me in any
matter, because he has the way of taking
the notion that everyone on earth is a
rascal except himself. I do not fancy
that. He thinks he can convince the
American people that I am a rascal.
Well, I have always thought I could out-
-cuss him, but I was too much of a gentle¬
man to try.
That, Mr. President, is enough for Mr.
Ickes. I am sorry I became diverted from
the main theme to a discussion of him.
Now to return to the main proposition.
If we go into this matter now and build
these dams, and then authorize Mr. Ickes
to take the power and distribute it to suit
himself, build his transmission lines, he
can shoot down any private company in
America. I am not saying that private
companies are perfect. I do not think we
should impute to them all that Mr. Ickes
would have us do. I think we should
Judge them not according to any indi¬
vidual’s ideas, but judge them as we
would any other person or any other cor¬
poration. I do think they are symbolic
at this moment of private enterprise in
America.
I will even go so far as to say that I
look forward to the time when the Fed¬
eral Government will no longer be beg¬
ging for money on the streets and the
highways of this country, as it must do
now, when it will no longer be extracting
money from the banks and the insur¬
ance company, whether they will or not,
and that we can erect a structure here
on the ruins of the old depression in
which the American people can invest
their savings in going concerns with the
hope of seeing them grow, with the hope
of good dividends, and the hope of con¬
stant expansion. But if we adopt the
policy suggested we strike down the first
line of defense of free enterprise.
My proposal is a very simple one. I
am trying to maintain a live-and-let-live
policy. I am trying so to arrange the
program that the Federal Government
can build dams, control floods, and sell
power, and at the same time not sell it
in such a way as to destroy the invalu¬
able assets we now have in the private
power companies. Some may challenge
my statement that they are invaluable
assets. Let us agree that here and there
everything bad has been done that is said
to have been done. Let us agi’ee that
there was a necessity for reform in the
holding company field. That reform is
behind us. It is accomplished.
The power companies came to my
State about 35 or 40 years ago. We had
no coal. We had no industries. In
those days it was generally understood
that North Carolina would never get
ahead. It was described as a valley of
humiliation, with the mountain peak of
South Carolina’s pride — I hope I do not
offend — on one hand, and the might of
Virginia on the other. We had no iron,
and we had no coal. It was thought,
therefore, that we would never get any
Industries. I riiyself rather thought so.
While I am on my feet, let me tell a
story. When I was about 24 years old
I happeiied to fall in with Mr. D. A.
Tompkins. We were coming down the
mountain by the Happy Valley, to which
I referred yesterday. Those were the
days when we rode in hacks. He said to
me, “Young man, you will live to see the
day when all this country will be dotted
with textile institutions. North Caro¬
lina is going to grow. We are going to
manufacture our own cotton goods, and
more besides; and when we get those in¬
dustries we will get others.’’
That was in the midst of the old de¬
pression of the nineties. Some called it
the Grover Cleveland depression, and
others the Harrison depression; but it
was my depression, at any rate. I was a
victim of it. I was starting out in life,
and looking about my own State. At that
time the public schools of North Carolina
were operating only 14 weeks in the year,
and the pay of a teacher was only $25 a
month for those 14 weeks. The outlook
was very gloomy. Tompkins, with the
eye of a prophet, told me about the de¬
velopment that was ahead. I said, “Mr.
Tompkins, we have no iron, and we have
no coal. We are not like Pennsylvania.
We are not like New England. We have
no seaports. Why do you make such pre¬
dictions?’’
He said, “We are going to flood this
State with ‘white coal.’ ” I had never
heard the expression before. I asked
him what he meant. He said “electric¬
ity.’’ He said, “What is happening by
way of the building of dynamos and the
transmission of power is going to bring
North Carolina and the South into their
own. You ought to thank God every day
that you are a young man, and will live
to see it.’’
Mr. Tompkins lived to see a part of it,
but not what I have seen. Today North
Carolina has 400 cotton mills, and many
woodworking and furniture plants. I
think we outrank Michigan in the pro¬
duction of furniture. In addition we
have great cigarette manufacturers. We
have all that, not by virtue of Federal
power, not because of dams operated by
Mr. Ickes. We had never heard of him
then. We have it because of private
power. We are realizing the blessings of
white coal, which was developed by pri¬
vate capital, and is to this day managed
by corporations under the supervision of
the State. So I say that the power com¬
panies are great assets. If we had not
had them. North Carolina would prob¬
ably be away back yonder where she was
about 1910. Let me say to my fellow
Senators from the South that we have a
little coal around Birmingham, and we
are now developing more or less traffic
by rail. We have a little steel around
Birmingham; but for the most part, the
8437
one portion of this country more depend¬
ent upon electrical energy than any other
is the southern section of the country.
That is not to say that we do not use
coal. We use coal, but we must pay more
for it than do the people near the coal
fields.
In this connection, let me make a
comment which may be of some in¬
terest. The Duke Power Co. in North
Carolina operates a great series of dams,
built under the supervision of the late
Buchanan Duke; but it also operates a
steam plant, which uses 700 tons of coal
a day. I am told that the use of coal is
just as economical as the use of water
pov/er.
On that point, let me say that if we go
into this business and sell power to the
public at rates less the franchise tax,
less the State income tax, less the prop¬
erty tax, and less the Federal tax, there
is no possibility that any power company
can survive. I am satisfied that the Sen¬
ate does not wish to destroy them. What
we wish to have is a policy under which
the Federal Government can build its
fiood-control projects and add to them,
when it is reasonable to do so, power
production, and then sell the power un¬
der circumstances which will permit pri¬
vate enterprise to live, even if the private
enterprise does have the bad name of
being a power company.
The only alternative is to destroy the
power companies, or buy them in, as the
Tenness'ee Valley Authority bought the
Tennessee Power Co. Let the Federal
Government borrow money to pay for
them, centralize the power, and destroy
free enterprise in the instance of power
companies, and then use the centralized
Federal power to control every enterprise
in every section of the country.
That is the choice which we have. My
amendment provides for the production
of the power and the sale of it at the
point of production. Everyone knows
the reason for that. If Mr. Ickes is given
authority to build transmission lines, he
will build them into the cities and take
the cream of the private companies’
business at once. The private company
must pay taxes. The Federal Govern¬
ment does not even have to pay for its
money. It does not even have to pay
for its losses. They can be taken out of
the Treasury. That is the first point in
the amendment. Then it provides for
sale of the power on an equitable basis,
the sale to everyone who comes, alike.
In his letter I think the Secretary of
the Interior says we would be putting-
the rural electric lines in a bad positV-n.
That is not the case at all, Mr. President.
The rural electric lines will be able to
buy the, power just the same as anyone
else will be. The power line will be able
to buy it the same as anyone else will.
The amendment provides that any prof¬
its or savings shall be passed on to the
consumers. Anyone else will be able to
buy the power, just as he wishes, and
will be able to distribute it. Of course,
that will put the power in the hands of
the local power companies, where they
can use it, if they extend their trans¬
mission lines to the dam and get the
electrical power and distribute and sell
it; and we would help them to that ex-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 22
8438
tent, because we would build a great dam
for it. But the power must be distributed
in either one way or the other. We can
either distribute it by means of the Fed¬
eral Government, with the resultant de¬
struction of free enterprise, or we can
distribute it through free enterprise.
Senators can make their choice about
that. I have made mine.
Of course, there is the possibility that
the power will not be sold. I have in¬
serted a proviso in my amendment to
cover that point. If under the system I
have proposed the power is not sold
within 3 years, the Federal Government
will have a right to run a transmission
line to the dam and to sell the power at
wholesale. I think there may be some
sections of the country where there is
no demand for electrical power. There
may be a demand for such power later
on. I fear that there are some sections
of the country in which there is a sur¬
plus of electrical power. Let us hope
that will not be true later on. Let us not
proceed on the theory that we have too
much power. There may be a surplus at
the present time in some places, but let
us hope that we shall have a great
abundance always. If, however, the pri¬
vate companies did not buy the power,
or if the rural cooperatives did not buy
it, then we would provide authority, after
3 years, to go into the market and to sell
it at the end of a transmission line built
by the Government. The power would
be sold at wholesale. If we do not in¬
clude a provision for its sale at whole¬
sale, we will run Mr. Ickes right into the
private power business. While I have
said that he is a good Secretary of the
Interior, I would not let him run any of
my businesses if I could help it.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tun-
NELL in the chair). Does the Senator
from North Carolina yield to the Senator
from Louisiana?
Mr. BAILEY. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is it not true that
the language which the Senator’s amend¬
ment would strike from the bill provides
that the power lines shall be built by the
Secretary, for wholesale distribution
only, not retail distribution?
Mr. BAILEY. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. How can the Sen¬
ator argue that under the law the Secre¬
tary of the Interior would have the right
to sell the power at retail?
Mr. BAILEY. I am glad the Senator
has called my attention to that language.
I will read it myself. This language was
in the amendment originally, but was
stricken out -
Mr. ELLENDER. I am speaking of
the language which the Senator seeks to
strike from the bill.
Mr. BAILEY. Yes. While I have put
similar language into my amendment, I
was speaking of the alternatives to my
amendment. I was not thinking of this
special matter. But if the Senator
wishes me to do so, I will state that the
amendment as originally reported pro-
\ided as follows;
The Secretary of the Interior Is authorized
to construct and acquire only such transmis¬
sion lines and related facilities as may be
necessary In order to make the power and
energy generated at said projects available
in wholesale quantities for sale on fair and
reasonable terms and conditions to facilities
owned by the Federal Government, public
bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned
companies.
I will explain my position. 1 was not
thinking about that alternative at all. I
was giving Senators their choice between
my amendment and the general alterna¬
tive at which Mr. Ickes is striving. There
is no question on earth but that the pro¬
gram in certain quarters in Washington
is to put the Federal Government wholly
into the power business, wholesale and
retail. The pending amendment, which
I do not think is an amendment of the
Secretary’s, was agreed upon in my ab¬
sence by the chairman of the subcom¬
mittee, I think.
At any rate, Mr. President, I have un¬
dertaken to lay before the Senate the
alternatives here. I have undertaken to
state the terms of this problem, which
now has come to the point where we
must go either one way or the other. It
is my judgment that unless the amend¬
ment which I have put forward here
shall be adopted as the policy of our
Government, in view of the great de¬
velopments which we have projected, we
will inevitably run into Federal power
as a whole. We will destroy the free
enterprise system upon which we have
built the structure, so far, not only of
the country but the industrial struc¬
ture of our people.
I will say about the amendment that
I drew it after very careful considera¬
tion. I drew it without the aid or as¬
sistance of anyone on earth. I drew it
in the privacy of my office, and in an
honest effort to solve a difficult prob¬
lem. I put it forward here as the best
that I can conceive of by way of a
method of enabling the Federal Gov¬
ernment to go on with its flood control
and its incidental production of power,
but at the same time to enable the private
power companies and private enterprise
generally to carry on without the con¬
dition of a hopeless and ruinous compe¬
tition.
I submitted the amendment to the
Committee on Commerce. Twelve Sen¬
ators were present at the committee
meeting. The amendment was very
thoroughly discussed. It was altered to
some extent from the original amend¬
ment which I had proposed, and I think
it was altered for the better, and cer¬
tainly with my approval. It was sup¬
ported by the committee by a vote of
9 to 3. It stands here as a committee
amendment, and has that status. I urge
Senators, with all earnestness, seriously
to consider it. If they take the view
I have taken, I have no question as to
what their decision will be.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BAILEY. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. I should like to in¬
quire whether the Senator feels that his
description of the private power plants,
as he finds them in his State, is generally
applicable to such plants all over the
country.
Mr. BAILEY. I would not know a
thing about plants in the other sections
of the country. I am simply using the
situation in North Carolina and what
I know about it as illustrative of the
situation as I see it and, certainly, as
having a great deal to do with my atti¬
tude.
Mr. MURRAY. Does the Senator be¬
lieve that the private power plants have
been a great asset in the development of
industry in this country?
Mr. BAILEY. I am sure of it.
Mr. MURRAY. I am inclined to ques¬
tion that. I question it because of our
experience in my own State of Montana.
In Montana we have a power monopoly,
controlled by the Montana Power Co.
The Montana Power Co. was organized
by means of grouping a number of
smaller plants, and thereby obtaining
control of the entire power industry of
the State. In organizing that power mo¬
nopoly, in each instance after a plant
was acquired it was turned in at a very
highly inflated value. The result is that
the stock of the Montana Power Co. was .
inflated way beyond anything within
reason. Then, later on, the Montana
Power Co.’s controlling interest was
taken over by the American Power &
Light Corporation, and subsequently the
control of the American Power & Light
Corporation was taken over by the Elec¬
tric Bond & Share Corporation. Each
of those holding companies has also un¬
dertaken to milk the State of Montana,
requiring the maintenance of excessive
power rates.
As a result of this monopoly in our
State, we find that it retards industrial
development and business growth. As
the result of this situation, we find that
in our State no new industries are being
developed and no business of any kind
is growing, and the State has been wit¬
nessing a gradual loss of population.
Every census taken during, the last 40
years has shown a decline in population.
This is all because of the fact that this
power company monopolizes the pro¬
duction and sale of electric power in our
State, holds up the rates, and prevents
new enterprises from developing be¬
cause they cannot afford to operate on
the basis of the rates charged by the
present company.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, allow me
to say to the Senator from Montana -
Mr. MURRAY. Only recently there
came to my attention -
Mr. BAILEY. Is the Senator making
a speech or asking a question?
Mr. MURRAY. I am merely trying to
explain the situation existing in Mon¬
tana as compared with the situation
which the Senator has described with
reference to the State of North Carolina.
I admit that if all the States in the
Union were in such excellent condition
as that claimed by the Senator from
North Carolina for his State, I do not be¬
lieve there would be much opportunity
for me to make an argument against him
in this matter. I am inclined .to think
that if conditions in North Carolina are
exactly as the Senator states, they do not
apply to the country as a whole.
Mr. BAILEY. Allow me to say to the
Senator from Montana that there are no
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8439
conditions in North Carolina with re¬
spect to power which could not be made
applicable in any State if the State knew
what to do. I should be the last to sug¬
gest that Montana, represented here as
it is by its senior Senator and the junior
Senator, would not know what to do.
During a long life I have never heard
of any industries leaving North Carohna
or failing to come to North Carolina be¬
cause of power rates. Power rates are
low. But I have known of one great
company which refused to go to another
State because of the character of its
politics. I suppose that politics in Mon¬
tana are on a high level. I would not
suggest anything to the contrary. But
when the Senator gets into an argument
as to why one State is growing and an¬
other is not, I do not think he can hold
his ground that power companies are
keeping the States from growing. Power
companies grow by selling power, and
most of them of which I have heard were
trying to get industries to come into the
State and consume power. It is a well-
known principle that the more power
there is to sell the lower the price of the
power will be, and the greater will be the
voliune consumed. The principle applies
with respect to power, I believe, even
more than it does with respect to auto¬
mobiles and other commodities. Tlie
volume has a great deal to do with the
rate. Every time we reach a new peak
volume in North Carolina we have a new
dip in the rates. The rates are under
the supervision of the State. We are not
afraid of the power companies in North
Carolina. We control them. We take
6 percent of their gross income to start
with, and even then we obtain low rates.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator makes
what sounds like a logical argument. It
may be true that in his State the situa¬
tion can be controlled, and reasonable
rates maintained but it is entirely dif¬
ferent in Montana and, I believe, in many
other sections of the country as well.
Mr. BAILEY. I will not dispute the
Senator with regard to that point, but
God forbid that the time shall ever come
when I stand as a Senator from North
Carolina, and say that my State is not
capable of dealing with any situation
presented to it. I am not saying that
the Federal Government should manage
matters in North Carolina. If I had to
do that I believe I would ask that the
State be made a Territory.
Mr. MURRAY. I am not undertak¬
ing to dispute the Senator with reference
to the manner in which problems are
handled in the State of North Carolina.
I am merely saying that as the result
of a monopoly which exists in Montana,
and the failure to develop adequate pow¬
er and sell it at low rates, we are wit¬
nessing a decline in population and a
failure to obtain new industries. Not
only has the power monopoly to which
I have referred failed to go forward and
develop, and provide cheaper power, but
as the Federal Government has under¬
taken to develop cheap power in Mon¬
tana at Fort Peck and the Poison Dam
the monopoly has been able to grab it
and prevent the State of Montana from
obtaining benefit from it. It is a sub¬
ject which the senior Senator from Mon¬
tana [Mr. Wheelkr] was undertaking
yesterday to explain. I believe that be¬
fore the debate on the subject has been
completed he will probably discuss this
matter more fully.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, an
amendment has been submitted and is
lying on the desk. It deals with sev¬
eral matters involving the pending leg¬
islation. It deals, for example, with sec¬
tion 6 of the bill as reported by the Com¬
mittee on Commerce, with section 8 of
the bill, and with the provisions begin¬
ning on page 20 and continuing to page
21 with respect to the Missouri River
Basin. It perhaps deals also with one
other section.
In addition, Mr. President, there is an
amendment which undertakes to deal
with the protection of local rates in the
planning of projects and in the distribu¬
tion of water.
The sponsors of this amendment are
hoping to have a conference this after¬
noon or tomorrow with a view to work¬
ing out an agreement with the commit¬
tee.
Inasmuch as it appears likely that the
remainder of the afternoon will be de¬
voted to matters which are now pending,
and which have not been decided, I ask
unanimous consent that the specific
amendments to which I have referred go
over until Friday.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, re¬
serving the right to object, do the sug¬
gestions of the Senator and the amend¬
ments to which he has referred relate
in any way to the Connecticut River
Basin?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes; one of them
does.
Mr. OVERTON. I was hopeful that
we might possibly dispose of the Con¬
necticut River Basin proposal this after¬
noon.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I doubt whether
it can be disposed of this afternoon, be¬
cause, as I have said, the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. Austin] has been in con¬
ference with the sponsors of the amend¬
ment, and it is an integral part of the
pending proposal.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
have no objection.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, may I ask
to what amendments the Senator is re-
-ferring?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I am referring to
the amendments which I asked to have
printed, and which are lying on the desk.
The amendments were offered on behalf
of the senior Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Austin], the Senator from South Dakota
[Mr. Bushfield], the Senator from New
Mexico [Mr. Chavez], the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. Clark], and other Sena¬
tors.
Mr. AIKEN. Is one of them the so-
called O’Mahoney amendment?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes; the O’Mah-
oney-Milllkin amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. To when did the Sena¬
tor ask that the amendments go over?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Until Friday. I
understand that there is to be no session
of the Senate tomorrow.
Mr. "WHITE. Mr. President, in asking
that the amendments go over until Fri¬
day, is there implied any understanding
that a vote will be reached on them on
Friday?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Oh, no. I merely
did not wish to have the amendments
taken up for consideration today.
Mr. OVERTON. There is, however, a
fervent hope on the part of the senior
Senator from Louisiana that we may vote
on them on Friday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Wyoming that the amendments to
which he has referred be passed over
until Friday? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I rise
in opposition to the amendment proposed
by the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey]. I followed his
speech very closely in respect to his con¬
tention that the adoption of the policy
contained in the committee amendment
is a forerunner to the destruction of pri¬
vate enterprise. I cannot quite agree
with him. The production of power
from falling water in connection with
flood control and navigation should by
all means be carried out by the Federal
Government. It is a large, intricate, and
expensive undertaking and if left to pri¬
vate enterprise I entertain the view that
little, if any, of our huge water resources
Would be adequately developed. It is
necessary that our efforts be coordinated
in that direction so as to properly de¬
velop that source of power. If left to
private enterprise, profits, instead of a
preservation of our natural resources,
would be the motive, and I know that
many feasible projects would remain un¬
developed.
As I pointed out to the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina a few min¬
utes ago, under the original committee
amendment the Secretary of the Interior
is merely empowered to build lines so as
to facilitate the distribution of power in
wholesale quantities and not retail.
Existing distribution systems by retail
will be afforded the opportunity to tap
such Government lines as may be built
from the source of the power to points
of distribution for retail. I repeat, and
please bear in mind. Senators, that the
original committee amendment does not
authorize the building of power lines by
the Government for retail distribution,
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I wish to
apologize to the Senator who is speaking
and to the Senate. I must leave the
Chamber to take a little lunch, and will
be right back.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, when
T. V. A. was created by the Congress I
was not privileged to hold membership
in this body and I was therefore not af¬
forded the opportunity to vote for such a
project. Since taking office I have al¬
ways supported the T. V. A., because I
believe it to be most essential for the
preservation of our oil, coal, and other
power resources for future generations.
The power developed by T. V. A. from
our water resources during this war has
saved tons of oil, coal, and other power-
producing resources and, may I add, the
lives of hundreds of our boys. That
power made it possible for us to prepare
for war in a very short period.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8440
Mr. Pi-esident, I wish to state now that
I propose to work for and fight for the
establishment of other T. V. A.’s through¬
out the Nation. My hope is that a gigan¬
tic plan can be inaugurated and coordi¬
nated so as to make electricity avail¬
able to all citizens in every section of
our country. Such a plan cannot be
carried out by private capital. Such a
plan must be given national scope with
a view of preserving our dwindling oil
and coal resources. I firmly believe that
if we should utilize falling water to gen¬
erate electric power we could preserve
under ground oil and coal in vast quan¬
tities for the protection of generations
unborn. If properly developed, I can
foresee our main railroad trunk lines
powered by electricity generated from
our water resources. I can see our major
industries powered with cheap electricity.
That, Mr. President, can be done only if
we have a master plan to go by under
Government supervision and with Gov¬
ernment aid. My hope is that private in¬
dustry will undertake to distribute by
retail most of the power that will be
developed with Government funds.
Mr. President, I do not intend to fur¬
ther elaborate on the advantages of
power development by the Federal Gov¬
ernment, but I shall discuss the pending
amendment.
In my humble opinion, the so-called
Bailey amendment, if adopted, would de¬
stroy a fixed policy which has been es¬
tablished by the Congress for over 40
years, and which has made it possible to
distribute cheap electricity to many of
the people of the United States. The
amendment restricts the sale of Govern¬
ment power at the source, which is con¬
trary to the public-owned power policy
repeatedly declared by the Congress.
Section 5 of the bill, as it is now written,
provides that the Secretary of the In¬
terior shall have the power to build lines,
not to distribute electricity direct to the
consumers but on a wholesale basis, so
that all distributors, whether private or
quasi-private or Government owned, will
have an opportunity of purchasing elec¬
tricity for distribution to the ultimate
consumer.
As I view the Bailey amendment, this
Is what would occur: The Federal Gov¬
ernment would spend millions of dollars
to develop electric power and then leave
it to private industry to tap it at the
source, purchase up to 90 percent of
capacity, and then control the distribu¬
tion of the electricty generated. If the
policy prescribed in the Bailey amend¬
ment were to prevail at Bonneville and
at Grand Coulee, it would be impossible
for the cooperatives of the Nation to
distribute any of the electricity produced
at those dams, for ttie simple reason that
the Grand Coulee is located almost 95
miles from appreciable habitation and
Bonneville 45 miles. Under present con¬
ditions the cooperatives have much diffi¬
culty in borrowing sufficient funds to
distribute electricity to customers near
their source of supply. If they had to
spend enormous sums in order to trans¬
mit electricity for from 45 to 95 miles,
Senators can readily see that many
farmers and many small communities
which are now not furnished with elec¬
tricity would continue to be deprived
of it.
On the other hand, if the Bailey
amendment were adopted the Secretary
of the Interior would have to wait 3
years before he could make any move.
Listen to the language, and I quote from
page 3, beginning on line 6, of the printed
amendment:
Provided, That unless 90 percent of the
firm power produced at such projects shall
be demanded or purchased within 3 years
after completion of construction of such pro¬
jects, the Secretary of the Interior is author¬
ized to construct transmission lines for the
purpose of selling such power at wholesale.
In other words, it is conceivable that
a plant may remain idle 3 years before
the Secretary can make a move. He must
allow private industry 3 years so as to
decide whether or not it will utilize at
least 90 percent of the power developed.
Should private industry exercise the
right, then cooperatives would be exclud¬
ed from using cheap. Government-
owned power. That, I am certain, is not
desired by the American people.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, does the
Senator understand that if a private con¬
cern is willing to build a line to a dam
and take the power there would be any
control over the resale price of that pow¬
er, except to say that the benefits of the
dam should be passed on? For instance,
if power is produced and the wholesale
price, we will say, is a cent and a half, but
because of the dam it can be produced for
a cent, that means that the price might
be reduced from 14 to 131/2 cents per
kilowatt-hour, but there is no assurance
that the consumers would really get the
benefit of the dam, is there?
Mr. ELLENDER. No, but the Bailey
amendment would be subject to the same
provision as that which is now contained
in the bill, and that is that it would be
under the control of the Federal Power
Commission.
Mr. AIKEN. Does it say that the Fed¬
eral Power Commission shall fix the
rates? I do not so understand it.
Mr. ELLENDER. On page 4, in line
21, section 5, as modified by the Bailey
amendment, it is provided —
the rate of schedules to become effective upon
confirmation and approvai by the Federal
Power Commission.
Mr. AIKEN. Is that in any State or
simply in those States that have no pub¬
lic service commissions of their own?
Mr. ELLENDER. As I interpret the
language I think it applies to all electric¬
ity sold by the Government, whether
under the amendment as written or
under the Bailey amendment. If the
Senator will look at .page 4 of the pend¬
ing bill beginning with line 21 he will find
the words :
The rate schedules to become effective
upon confirmation and approval by the Fed¬
eral Power Commission.
That language remains in the bill even
with the Bailey amendment, and applies
with equal force.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I think the Senator ought
to take in connection with the provision
November 22
he has read the provision of the Bailey
amendment on page 3, line 2, beginning
with the word “It”, which reads:
It shall be stipulated in connection with
any.sale that any and all savings realized by
ths 1 urchases shall be passed on under Fed¬
eral regulation where no State regulation
exists, to the consuming public.
I think that provision nullifies, so far
as any practical effect is concerned, any
provision about the Federal Power Com¬
mission.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator may be
correct. As I understand the language
just quoted by him, it relates to savings
made and not to rates.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, under the
Bailey amendment the Federal Power
Commission has to approve the rate
schedules fixed by the Secretary of the
Interior, but I do not see that the Federal
Power Commission has to approve the
rates charged the consumer.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator may be
correct about that. However, I desire to
point out and emphasize that the Federal
Power Commission will have the same
power if the Bailey amendment is
adopted as it would have if the original
committee amendment were adopted by
the Senate, insofar as rate making is con¬
cerned.
Mr. AIKEN. It looks to me as if the
Bailey amendment nullifies the provision
of the bill which the Senator has just
read.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, as I
have said — and I desire to emphasize it —
if the Bailey amendment is written into
the bill as it is now framed and pending
before the Senate it would be possible for
the Federal Government to build a proj¬
ect and for it to remain idle for 3 years.
I do not believe any of us want that to
happen. I do not believe the people of
this country desire to have the Federal
Government build these projects, at
enormous expense, and then let the
power generated at the dams be utilized
solely by private concerns.
The third and last objection I have
to the Bailey amendment is that it is in
some respects contradictory in terms.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield at that point?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques¬
tion.
Mr. HILL. Does not the Senator think
that the Bailey amendment would put
the Federal Government absolutely at
the merpy of the private power com¬
panies? And when I say at the mercy of
the private power companies, I call at¬
tention to the fact that there is no com¬
petition between private power com¬
panies, so far as the purchase of power
and the distribution of power are con¬
cerned. They all work right together,
and I wish to be fair and say that in
many respects they have to work to¬
gether. They have what we used to call
in the old days the gridiron system.
There may be a private power company
operating in an area where the Govern¬
ment has built a dam, and no farm co¬
operative can go there, because there is
no provision for transmission lines. So
the Federal Government, unless it wants
this power to go over the dams and be
wasted for 3 years at a time, is abso-
1944
8441
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
lutely at the mercy of the private power
company as to what it will pay for the
power’.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator is cor¬
rect and I have tried to make that point
clear on several occasions during the
course of my remarks.
Mr. HILL. We saw that at Muscle
Shoals, at the Wilson Dam, after the
last war. We recall how the power there
was sold at 2 mills a kilowatt-hour, which
was a very cheap rate at that time, and
that it was sold to the consuming pub¬
lic for 5 or 6 or 7 cents a kilowatt-hour.
There was no competition there at that
time, and the Government was abso¬
lutely at the mercy of the private power
company. It had to take what the com¬
pany asked or permit the power to go to
waste, with consequent loss to the Gov¬
ernment.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the
third objection I have to the Bailey
amendment, as I indicated a few minutes
ago, is that it is in some aspects
contradictory in terms. The amend¬
ment as originally adopted by the com-
mitteee provides on page 4, line 23, of the
bill, that —
Preference In the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives.
That language will remain in the bill
should the Bailey amendment be
adopted.
Now the Bailey amendment provides:
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination.
The power shall be sold without spe¬
cial privilege or discrimination.
In other words, in the same section we
have language to the effect that prefer¬
ence in the sale of power and energy
shall be given to public bodies and coop¬
eratives, and following that language
we have the Bailey amendment lan¬
guage, which states that —
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination.
Now, Senators, which language would
prevail? There is certainly a contradic¬
tion and my guess is that private con¬
cerns would be in a position to purchase
power to the exclusion of cooperatives.
My hope is that the Senate will vote
down the pending amendment. As I in¬
dicated at the outset, I do believe that
the Congress should provide for the de¬
velopment of electric energy from falling
water so that all citizens can obtain
cheap electricity and so that we can pre¬
serve for future generations our oil, coal,
and other natural resources.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. May-
bank in the chair). The Senator from
California.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, it is my
intention to vote against the pending
amendment, and while I have no desire
to make an extensive argument upon it,
I wish briefly to express my views. While
I do not wish to reply at length to the
eloquent argument of the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Bailety], I do want
to say emphatically that I cannot agree
with him in his contention that the ex¬
tension of public power will imperil free
enterprise in the United States. As a
matter of fact, in the State of California
we have seen a wide development of
private enterprise directly because of the
extension of public power, and I have
no doubt that the continued develop¬
ment of power in California, both pri¬
vate and public, will further advance
business and free enterprise.
The proposed amendment now pend¬
ing would give large advantages to pri¬
vate utilities over cooperatives and pub¬
lic agencies in the purchase and utili¬
zation of public power. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Pi’es'dent, the portion of the
proposed amendment which has been
offered by the Senator from North Caro¬
lina would directly nullify the first part
of the amendment which is now in the
bill, and which would remain in the bill
under the proposed amendment. The
wording to which I refer is as follows:
Preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives.
I take it that that is a principle of law
on which all of us are agreed, that in
these public-power projects, where pub¬
lic money is used, public agencies and
cooperatives should be given the ad¬
vantage in the purchase of the power.
At least that sentence remains in the
amendment. But in spite of that fact,
the portion of the amendment now sug¬
gested by the Senator from North Caro¬
lina would prevent cooperatives and pub¬
lic agencies generally from competing
on equal terms with private utilities, be¬
cause it will be seldom, indeed, that any
cooperative, any city, any public agency
can build transmission lines from their
point of consumption to one of these
power dams to be erected. Private utili¬
ties, of course, can build such transmis¬
sion lines. So the principal effect of the
amendment would be that for 3 years,
cooperatives and public agencies which
should have preference, and to which we
desire to give preference, would be denied
equal opportunity with private utilities
to purchase the power at the dam site.
Because, Mr. President, the proposed
amendment would entirely nullify a ben¬
eficial principle of our law, that in public
power projects cooperatives and public
agencies should be given the advantage,
because it directly gives to private utili¬
ties an advantage, which I think is totally
unfair, it is my intention to vote against
the pending amendment.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc¬
Farland in the chair) . The Senator from
South Carolina.
Mr. MAYBANK. It is not my inten¬
tion to make any lengthy remarks on the
pending amendment, but it will be my
purpose to vote against it for many rea¬
sons. It is well known to the people of
South Carolina that were it not for the
public power projects in our State, estab¬
lished with the assistance of the Federal
Government, many of the industries now
operating in South Carolina would not
be there, and much of the war work
which has been done at the Charleston
Navy Yard and elsewhere would not have
been accomplished. Mr. President, fur¬
thermore, were it not for the excellent
cooperation and work of the Department
of Agriculture, the Interior Department,
and of the Committees on Appropriations
and Agriculture, in the extension through
Federal funds of rural electrification,
which has brought about cheap public
power and no line charges, our farmers
to a large extent would still be in the
dark and their incomes low.
I am hopeful that future Congresses
will continue Federal assistance and aid
to the States for power development, di¬
rect as well as indirect, so that the farms
of our State, from one end to the other,
may be lighted at cost, and so that in¬
dustries and others desirous of cheap
power from the waters v/hich flow
through our State, may be the benefici¬
aries.
Mr. DANGER. Mr. President, I be¬
lieve on a question so fundamental as
this we ought to have the yeas and nays.
I therefore ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. Ovfrton] if he is going
to try to dispose of thi'- amendment to¬
day.
Mr. OVERTON. I hope to dispose of
it today.
Mr. BARKLEY. If it is going to be
voted upon I desire to make some re¬
marks concerning it. If not I should
like to postpone my remarks until Fri¬
day. I have no desire to delay considera¬
tion of the amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. I should like very
much, I may say to the Senator from
Kentucky, to have the amendment voted
on today.
Mr. BARKLEY. Does the Senator
from North Dakota wish to speak now?
Mr. DANGER. No; I do not wish to
speak now, but I ask for the yeas and
nays on the amendment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I join in that request.
Mr. OVERTON. I should like to make
a brief statement i: reference to the
amendment and then the Senator from
Kentucky can close, or he can proceed,
and I can make a closing statement after
he has concluded.
Mr. BARKLEY. It does not make any
difference to me.
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator from
North Dakota has the floor.
Mr. BARKLEY. If it is all right with
the Senator I will proceed now and say
what I have to say.
Mr. DANGER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I wish
to make a brief statement in regard to
this amendment. I am sorry the Senator
from North Carolina [Mr. Bailey], the
author of the amendment, has found it
necessary to leave the Chamber. I rJ-
ways regret the necessity, when it is
a necessity, of disagreeing with the able
Senator from North Carolina. I think he
knows that there is no Member of this
body for whose ability and for whose
honesty and integrity I have greater re¬
spect than I have for his. I do not take
the attitude which I am taking on this
amendment because of what Mr. Ickes
has said in his ietter to me, although his
No. 161
3
8442 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 22
letter has fortified me in my opposition
to the amendment. I do not take the
position I take because of any statement
on the part of Governor Bricker. I have
disagreed with Governor Bricker con¬
cerning many things in recent months.
I do not thereby express any disrespect
for him or his right to entertain his views
on general political matters about which
no one expected me to agree with him.
While I have great respect for the ability
and the power of the United States
Chamber of Commerce I have found my¬
self sometimes in disagreement with
them and sometimes in agreement with
them. But I am not actuated in my at¬
titude on this amendment by anything
the United States Chamber of Commerce
or Governor Bricker or anyone else has
said. I am actuated by my belief that
the adoption of this amendment would be
a serious mistake on the part of the
Senate of the United States, and I have
in a modest way been identified with the
development of power legislation in the
United States during the past 32 years.
For a long time the activities of Con¬
gress in regard to our rivers were limited
to navigation. It was a wise provision
which our forefathers inserted into the
Constitution, giving the Congress the
power to regulate the commerce among
the States. That provision grew out of
disputes among the Colonies prior to the
adoption of the Constitution following
the conclusion of the Revolutionary War,
during that interim period when many
of the States engaged in quarrels among
themselves concerning the regulation of
commerce among the States and Colonies
and the navigation of or control of the
navigation of rivers.
I recall that the Legislature of New
York, for instance, adopted a measure
prohibiting the importation of firewood
from Connecticut in order to compel the
people of New York to burn their own
wood, and they also passed a law pro¬
hibiting the importation of vegetables
from Maryland and Virginia in the in¬
terest of 'home industries, and the States
of Maryland and Virginia became in¬
volved in an acute quarrel over the navi¬
gation of the Potomac River, and came
almost to armed conflict over it. The
result was that there was held a con¬
ference in Annapolis to try to adjust that
difference between Virginia and Mary¬
land, and that little conference resulted
In the Convention in Philadelphia which
wrote the Constitution of the United
States, and having in view the experience
of the States prior to its adoption, the
authors of that document wrote into it
the provision which gives to Congress
the power to regulate commerce among
the States.
Congress did not exercise that power
for 100 years, for while the Constitution
was written in 1787, the first act to regu¬
late commerce was passed in 1887,
I think we have all come to realize that
In the complications of modern life there
is of necessity a growing tendency, which
has taken on, it seems to me, the attitude
of compulsion, that as the years go by
the Federal Government must deal con¬
stantly more and more with problems
which are national. It would be incon¬
ceivable that two States in the Ameil-
can Union should be allowed to quarrel
over the navigation of a river, or that
one State should be allowed to prevent
the importation into its boundaries of
commercial articles from another State.
So that when Congress finally decided
that the time had come when we should
inaugurate commerce among the States
by the navigation or the improvement of
the navigation of om' rivers, which had
been provided for by the commerce
clause of the Constitution, we first dealt
with the question purely from the stand¬
point of navigation, deepening the chan¬
nels and improving the harbors, so that
more ships could come into our ports and
go out of our ports in the commercial
activities of the growing Nation. When
that policy was first adopted very little
attention was paid to flood control or
to electric power. These things were
incidental for a long time until the pas¬
sage of the Federal Power Act, which
made no provision whatever for any
power that might be generated by dams
constructed for navigation purposes.
As the electric age advanced and elec¬
tricity became a more important factor
in our industrial and social life, we began
to recognize the fact that while we were
building dams for navigation purposes
we might as well take care of whatever
incidental power might be created by the
construction of the dams while under
construction. That saved expense both
on the part of the Federal Government
and on the part of private individuals
who desired to embark upon the con¬
struction and operation of dams. The
two things had to be coordinated, be¬
cause it would have been unwise if not
foolish to have the Federal Government
building dams across rivers purely for
navigation purposes and then have other
dams, built in the same vicinity for power
purposes or for flood control. So gradu¬
ally we came to coordinate navigation,
electric power, and flood control in the
development of our policy toward the
improvement of our navigable streams.
I have no quarrel, and I have never
had any quarrel with honest industry of
any kind. I have no desire to do it any
injustice; and I do not believe that my
record in the Senate and in the other
body over a period of years would justify
any complaint that I have ever at¬
tempted to do an injustice to business
of any kind, especially if it is honest
business. I do not think it is possible to
do an injustice to dishonest business. If
it is dishonest, the only just thing is to
curb it. I believe in honest business;
and if I know what we are talking about
when we talk about free enterprise, I
believe in that.
I have not yet heard an exact defini¬
tion of free enterprise. I do not know
where to draw the line between freedom
and slavery as applied to enterprise. I
do not believe in the freedom of ^ny kind
of enterprise, big or little,- to do as it
pleases, to drive out competition, and to
engage in unfair practices. As business
has become Nation-wide in its complica¬
tions and ramifications, we have found
it more and more necessary to regulate
it by the only power which the Constitu¬
tion recognizes as having the authority
and jurisdiction to regulate commerce
among the States; namely, the Congress
of the United States.
Our rivers were not made by us. They
were not made by any corporation. They
were not made by any private enterprise,
free or otherwise. Those rivers consti¬
tute a part of the great body of natural
resources which belong to the American
people, and they ought to be developed
for the benefit of the American people.
If no one, aside from the Government of
the United States, has either the power,
the financial strength, or the inclination
to develop them for the use and service
of the American people, I do not choke
at any reasonable measure designed to
harness those forces of nature for the
benefit of the American people.
We know that the development of our
resources on a comprehensive scale is a
tremendous problem. It has never been
undertaken by private enterprise on a
very comprehensive scale, and in the
very nature of things it could not be.
If we had relied upon private enterprise,
free or otherwise, Boulder Dam would
not have been constructed for the bene¬
fit of the people of California and the
other States in the Colorado River Ba¬
sin. That dam was constructed long
before Mr. Ickes became Secretary of
the Interior. The policies laid down by
the Federal Government for the control
of the waters of the Colorado River by
the construction of the Boulder Dam
were laid down by the Congress of the
United States long before Mr. Ickes was
ever connected with the Federal Govern¬
ment.
If we had relied altogether on private
enterprise the Roosevelt Dam would
never have been constructed. As I re¬
call that dam was built even before 1912,
when Mr. Ickes was a Republican, or a
Progressive. At least he was a follower
of Theodore Roosevelt. That dam was
built in the administration of Theodore
Roosevelt, and was named after Theo¬
dore Roosevelt. The law governing the
disposition of its resources was laid down
by Congress when Mr. Ickes was a fol¬
lower of Theodore Roosevelt, and not of
Franklin D. Roosevelt. I mention these
facts because Mr. Ickes’ letter seems to
have formed the basis of a large part of
the speech of the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr, Bailey]. A moment ago
I referred to the fact that the Senator
had been compelled to leave the Cham¬
ber. I am glad to see that he has now
returned to the Chamber. The Roose¬
velt Dam was constructed long before
Mr. Ickes had anything to do with the
Government of the United States, and
the policy was laid down by the Congress
of the United States before I ever heard
of Mr. Ickes, and before he supported
Theodore Roosevelt in the Bull Moose
campaign of 1912.
If we had relied upon private enter¬
prise alone, the Grand Coulee Dam and
the Bonneville Dam would never have
been built, and the Tennesee Valley
would never have begun its development.
There was an application by a private
concern to build a dam on the Tennessee
River near the Kentucky-Tennessee
line. There was grave doubt in the
minds of those familiar with the project
as to whether even that one dam would
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8443
ever be built by that private corporation.
It was never even begun; and when the
Tennessee Valley Authority was created,
not having any desire to have divided
authority in the Tennessee Valley, with
the Government building some of the
dams and private corporations building
others, the Tennessee Valley Authority
entered into an agreement with this
private corporation, which had never
started construction of the dam, al¬
though it had made some surveys as to
where it ought to be built. Finally the
T. V. A. had to move it down the river
several miles in order to find an appro¬
priate place to construct what is now the
Kentucky Dam on the Tennessee River,
which is the largest and last dam in the
Tennessee Valley, and is now nearing
completion.
So if we had been required, in order to
develop a water-power policy to harness
the great resources of our rivers — and
they are just as much natural resources
as coal and iron, or the soil itself — such
development never would have been
realized.
We have not relied altogether on pri¬
vate enterprise to develop our country.
We did not rely to any great extent on
private enterprise to create a farm pro¬
gram for the benefit of the farmers of
the United States. We have not relied
on private enterprise to start in motion
the conservation of our soil in order
that we may not hand down to genera¬
tions yet unborn a nation so impover¬
ished that they cannot make a living
upon the land.
We have not relied on private enter¬
prise to deliver mail over this country.
The delivery of mail is not a natural
resource. The Post Office Department
is simply a department of government,
but it is not a natural resource. Our
rivers are natural resources. The Post
Office Department belongs to the people
because Congress has created it for the
benefit of the people; but the rivers be¬
long to the people without any act of
Congress. They are by nature the in¬
heritance of the people, and the people
have a right to expect their Government
to develop them for the use and benefit
of all the people.
So while I am as much in favor of free
enterprise as is anyone else, if I know
wlTat free enterprise is, I am not in favor
of making it so free that it will be free
to do nothing, or free to do anything it
may see fit to do in order to carry out
its own program.
I am not saying that in criticism. The
Senator from North Carolina has re¬
ferred to private power companies. I
have no quarrel with them. A few years
ago the State of Kentucky came under
the blighting influence of the Insull in¬
stitution, to which the Senator referred,
and out of the debacle of the Insull em¬
pire came the Kentucky Utilities Co.,
which now serves many cities in Ken¬
tucky, but it is completely separate from
the former Insull enterprises and enjoys
its own corporate existence at this time.
By the way, it has entered into contracts
with the Tennessee Valley Authority for
the use of power generated by the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority. There has been
no serious quarrel between the Tennes¬
see Valley Authority and the Kentucky
Utilities Co., because it has been willing
to take power from the Tennessee Val¬
ley Authority, and is taking power from
it, for the benefit of the consumers of
electricity in the various cities where it
furnishes power.
The policy which has been in progress
ever since 1906 has been one by which
Congress has made an effort to coordi¬
nate the improvement of our river valleys
and the resources which may be de¬
veloped by improvement, for the benefit
of industry and agriculture and also of
the private consumers of electric power.
Under the bill as it has been reported by
the committee — I do not recall whether
the pending amendment was offered in
the committee; I am not a member of the
committee -
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, it was of¬
fered in the committee after the bill had
been reported. I was absent when the
original amendment came up. My
amendment was authorized by a vote of
9 to 3 to be reported as the committee
amendment.
Mr. BAREXEY. Very well. I was not
clear about what happened in the sub¬
committee.
Mr. BAILEY. I think the chairman of
the subcommittee may make a statement
about that.
Mr. BARKLEY. The provision in the
bill which was originally framed by the
committee is identical with the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from North
Carolina, down to the word “coopera¬
tives,” in the last line on page 4. In
order that we may understand the dif¬
ference between what it provides and
what is provided by the amendment the
Senator from North Carolina has offered,
I shall take the liberty of reading the
entire section:
Sec. 5. Electric power and energy generated
at reservoir projects under the control of the
War Department and in the opinion of the
Secretary of War not required in the opera¬
tion of such projects shall be delivered to the
Secretary of the Interior, who shall transmit
and dispose of such power and energy in such
manner as to encourage the most wide¬
spread use thereof at the lowest possible rates
to consumers consistent with sound business
principles, the rate schedules to become
effective upon confirmation and approval by
the Federal Power Commission. Preference
in the sale of such power and energy shall be
given to public bodies and cooperatives.
Then it goes on, and provides —
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to construct and acquire only such transmis¬
sion lines and related facilities as may be
necessary in order to make the power and
energy generated at said projects available in
wholesale quantities for sale on fair and
reasonable terms and conditions to facilities
owned by the Federal Government, public
bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned
companies.
The Senator from North Carolina pro¬
poses to strike out all of line 25 on page
4, and down to and including line 7 on
page 5, and to insert the following:
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
for the complete coordination of such power
and energy with other power developments,
both private and public, in th' area, contig¬
uous with such projects. It shall be stipu¬
lated in connection with any sale that any
and all savings realized by the purchasers
shall be passed on under Federal regulation
where no State regulation exists to the con¬
suming public : Provided, That unless 90 per¬
cent of the firm power produced at such
projects shall be demanded or purchased
within 3 years after completion of construc¬
tion of such projects, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to construct trans¬
mission lines for the purpose of selling such
power at wholesale.
Mr. President, I am assuming that
these dams must be constructed in order
to accomplish flood control, which is the
object of the bill. I do not agree with
the statement of the Senator from North
Carolina that in the construction of the
dams and improvements in order to pro¬
vide simultaneously for the possibility of
the use of power and the prevention or
control of floods the cost will be greater
than the original cost of the flood-con¬
trol project itself would have been.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, let me
interrupt the Senator from Kentucky,
please.
Mr. BARKI.EY. I yield.
Mr. BAILEY. It has been stated by
the engineers, I believe, that a dam 100
feet high, for instance, can be built for
flood-control purposes, but that if power
is desired, and especially if primary
power is desired — I am sure the Senator
knows what I mean by that expression;
I refer to constant power or what is
otherwise known as primary power — a
higher dam must be built. Sometimes
the dam must be built 30 feet or 40 feet
or even 50 feet higher. The engineers do
not hesitate to say that they are building
the dams higher in order to be sure of
obtaining primary power. It is not done
in order to be sure of having flood con¬
trol.
Mr. BARKLEY. I appreciate the fact
that in order to obtain power it is neces¬
sary to build some of the dams higher
than they would be built merely for the
purpose of flood control. But the add¬
ing of 30 or 40 feet to a 100-foot dam
certainly would not cost as much as the
original dam would cost, for the founda¬
tions would already have been built.
Mr. BAILEY. I myself would not say
that. But if the Senator will look into
the matter he will find that we used very
moderate figures by way of illustration.
Mr. BARKLEY. I understood the
Senator to say that the construction of
the dams for power purposes could cost
twice as much as their construction for
flood-control purposes would cost.
Mr. BAILEY. That is true in some in¬
stances.
Mr. BARKLEY. It may be true in
some instances, but I do not think it can
generally be maintained that the con¬
struction of dams for power purposes
would cost twice as much as would their
construction for flood-control purposes
only, although I grant that in some in¬
stances that may be so. Of course, we
are dealing with the situation as a whole.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. May-
bank in the chair). Does the Senator
8444
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 22
from Kentucky yield to the Senator from
Minnesota?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Of course, if a dam
is built higher in order to yield power,
it will yield an income.
Mr. BARKLEY. Oh, yes.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. If it is built merely
for flood-control purposes, there will be
no income, although of course there will
be the possibility of prevention of de¬
struction by floods or the flow of water,
Mr. BARKLEY. Of course, the build¬
ing of a dam higher than is necessary for
flood-control purposes may result in
many incidental benefits. For instance,
the higher the dam, the larger the lake
of water impounded, and such a lake may
be used for navigation or in some in¬
stances for irrigation and reclamation,
and in other instances it may be used for
recreation.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I should like
to suggest to the Senator from Kentucky
that the statement he has just made is
not always true. It may be true in cer¬
tain instances. I should like to cite an
instance which occurred in Missouri, not
at a Government-owned dam or a Gov¬
ernment-owned reservoir but at a pri¬
vately owned dam. A very high dam
had been built for power purposes. It
was operated for power purposes rather
than for flood-control purposes. Be¬
cause it was operated for power purposes
the reservoir was permitted to be filled
with water so as to make a great lake.
Then we had some very unusually heavy
rains in Missouri. Because the reservoir
had been filled for power purposes, a
12-foot head of water was permitted to
go down the Osage River. It caused tre¬
mendous damage not only on the lower
Missouri River but also on the Missis¬
sippi River, and even as far along as at
the Senator’s home town of Paducah,
and as far as Cairo.
Mr. BARKLEY. Let me inquire where
that dam is located.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The dam is
at Bagnell, Mo., on the Osage River.
Mr. BARKLEY. Then the water did
not pass my town, because my town is
on the Ohio River.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. But the re¬
sult was to back up the water in the
Ohio River.
Mr. BARKLEY. Of course, a rise in
the level of the water in the Mississippi
retards the flow of water in the Ohio
River.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Very well.
That is exactly what I am trying to tell
the Senator. It not only caused damage
on the Osage, on the Missouri, and on
the Mississippi, but I have been informed
that it backed a great deal of water up
on the Ohio River.
Mr. BARKLEY. That may be true.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That was
not a Government-owned dam. I am not
suggesting that it was. It was a pri¬
vately owned dam, operated for power
purposes instead of for flood control. It
Is my intention at the proper time to
offer an amendment to the pending bill
to put both publicly owned and privately
owned dams under the control of the
Corps of Engineers of the Army to the
end that the dams shall be properly
supervised.
Mr. BARKLEY. I have no doubt that
there are isolated instances of the con¬
struction of a dam resulting in damaging
the property of many persons.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That very
thing occurred in connection with a pub¬
licly owned dam.
Mr. BARKLEY. I am saying that by
and large, whether the dam be built for
flood control, navigation, or power, the
program carries with it incidental bene¬
fits.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Yes; inci¬
dental benefits and incidental injuries.
Mr. BARKLEY. Which may not be
the primary object of the construction
of the dam.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Exactly the
same thing has occurred elsewhere. I
have been informed that it occurred with
reference to the so-called Pensacola Dam
in Oklahoma, which was a publicly
owned dam operated by the Interior De¬
partment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I do not contend that
any law passed by Congress may not
ultimately do someone an injury. I do
not suppose there is a Federal statute on
the books which cannot now and then be
administered in such a way as to do
someone an injustice. I am speaking
about the program as a whole.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. WHEELER. The fact that a dam
is built does not necessarily mean that it
is built for power purposes. The dams
under consideration are to be built for
flood control. If the water backs up be¬
hind a certain dam and some of it can
be used for power purposes, or for irri¬
gation, or reclamation, then it will be
used for such purpose. I do not under¬
stand that all the dams to be constructed
are to be used for power purposes.
Mr. BARKLEY. That is the point I
have tried to make. The dams will be
built, anyway. It would be ridiculous to
build a dam purely for flood control or
navigation and not equip it for all inci¬
dental benefits, such as the utilization of
water for power, reclamation, and irri¬
gation. In other words, it would be
stupid to indulge in the expense of build¬
ing a dam for flood control and later
build one for power, irrigation, or navi¬
gation.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, I in¬
vite attention to the Fort Peck Dam.
The dam was not built for power pur¬
poses. If it had been built for power
purposes the engineers would probably
have built a different type of dam. The
dam was built for the purpose of flood
control, navigation, irrigation, and what¬
ever power could be obtained from it.
The dam will not produce a tremendous
amount of power. But those in charge
of the construction of the dam did not say
that it was to be built a certain height for
power purposes. They merely said that
whatever power could de developed from
it would be developed and used for the
purpose of attempting to bring into the
area new enterprises, or for irrigation.
If, as I have said, they had been building
the dam for power purposes they would
probably have built an entirely different
type of dam, and would have built it
much higher. So the cost of building the
Fort Peck Dam for the development of
power was comparatively small because
only one turbine and a few items of that
kind were installed. The cost of in¬
stalling those items represented but a
very small addition to the original cost
of building the dam.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator from Kentucky
yield to me in order that I may reply to
the Senator from Montana?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I was a
member of one of the first delegations
which ever talked to the President about
the Fort Peck Dam. As everyone recalls,
authorization for construction of the
dam was provided originally by Executive
order, that is to say, as a part of the
P. W. A. On three different occasions I
was a member of delegations headed by
the^ former Governor of Nebraska, Mr.
Weaver. The late Senator Norris, of
Nebraska, the senior Senator from
Kansas [Mr. Capper], several other
Senators, several Representatives, and I
called on the President and had a talk
with him. The first thing he asked us
was whether the project would develop
any power. I was not interested in the
development of power. I was interested
in flood control. I thought the Fort Peck
Dam would be a great factor in the prob¬
lem of flood control, and it has proved to
be such. I was not even very much in¬
terested in navigation, because I thought
flood control was the essential thing so
far as we who lived down at the bottom
of the valley were concerned.
As I have said, the President asked
whether the dam at Port Peck would
develop power. Governor Weaver said
that it would develop a certain amount
of power, and that if the dam were built
high enough it would develop a consid¬
erable quantity of power. But what we
were all primarily interested in was flood
control and navigation, and we were
Willing to take what we could get in the
way of power. We had no disposition to
oppose power development at Fort Peck
but, because of being at the other end
of the valley, we were Interested in de¬
veloping flood control and navigation.
That was the basis on which the Presi¬
dent proceeded. Doubtless, there was in¬
cluded in the project an understanding
that a certain amount of power would
be developed. So far as all of us at the
other end of the valley v/ere concerned,
we would have been glad to have as large
a dam as was needed for power purposes ;
but the primary purpose of the whole
project, supported by the entire Mis¬
souri Valley, was flood control and navi¬
gation.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, will
the Senator further yield to me?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. WHEELER. What the Senator
from Missouri has said is correct. When
Governor Weaver first came to Wash¬
ington he came to my office and told me
exactly what was being proposed with
respect to Fort Peck. He asked me if 1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
8445
, .*xv,erested in doing anything
t^help promote the project. I asked him
if we would be in position to obtain irri¬
gation in the drought-stricken area of
eastern Montana in the event the proj¬
ect should go through, and he said that
we would be given such benefits. I told
him that if we could obtain such bene¬
fits in Montana and North Dakota I
would be in favor of the project.
I telephoned the President and made
an appointment with him, and Gover¬
nor Weaver and I saw the President of
the United States. I think we were ac¬
companied by someone from the Omaha
Chamber of Commerce. At that time
the President told me that he would au¬
thorize the construction of the Fort Peck
Dam. One of the reasons, of course, why
he was anxious at that time to build it
was the exceedingly high rate of unem¬
ployment throughout the country. The
project which we proposed was ready to
go ahead. Senators from States in the
lower part of the valley were interested
in the project because of navigation and
flood control; but Se,nators from Mon¬
tana and North Dakota were interested
in it primarily because it would furnish
power in their States, and if in an in¬
cidental way the project would aid in
navigation and flood control we wanted
to help in its promotion. But our pri¬
mary interest was in the development
of cheap power, and, perhaps irrigation.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Sena¬
tor will agree that while we all cooper¬
ated in the matter we cooperated from
different motives.
Mr. WHEELER. Exactly.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The primary
consideration of the President was the
condition of unemployment throughout
the country.
Mr. WHEELER. Yes.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Those of us
living below the dam were primarily in¬
terested in flood control and navigation.
Mr. WHEELER. Yes.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
from Montana was undoubtedly inter¬
ested in the development of power. We
did not care how high the dam was to
be built so long as we were afforded a
means of controlling floods and supply¬
ing water for navigation.
Mr. WHEELER. The best evidence of
what the President had in mind was the
fact that when the dam was built the
engineers installed a turbine and power
plant. That was the best evidence of
what was in the minds of the adminis¬
tration when the dam was built. Pro¬
vision was made to install the turbine,
and also the power plant, both of which
are in operation today.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I hesitate to interrupt the Sena¬
tor from Kentucky any further except
for just one statement, and that is that
if the P. W. A. had started to build
the Fort Peck Dam originally before a
congressional act and had desired to
make a power dam out of it, none of the
supporters of the Fort Peck experiment
or project would have objected to it. The
administration did not choose to do it,
but it was not because of any objection
from any quarter that I ever heard of.
Mr. WHEELER. I do not understand
the Senator’s allusion. The adminis¬
tration did not choose to do what?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. To build a
power dam.
Mr. WHEELER. But the administra¬
tion put in a turbine and a power plant,
and that power plant is in existence to¬
day, and is selling power to the Montana
Power Co. at the present time at the bus¬
bar.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I do
not wish to go into the details of any
one particular dam.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, I
simply want to call the Senator’s atten¬
tion to the fact that at each one of the
dams which are to be built some power
can be developed whether the dams are
built for flood control, or for navigation,
or for other purposes.
Mr. BARKLEY. That is undoubtedly
true.
Mr. WHEELER. It seems perfectly
ridiculous when we are going to build a
dam where there is some potential power
that that power should not be developed
and the people of the country get sonae
benefit by selling it or where it can be
used for irrigation that they should not
get irrigation.
Mr. BARKLEY. I thoroughly agree
with the Senator, and that has been my
position ever since I have been a member
of the Congress.
I was discussing what I believe to be
the fact that equipping these dams to
produce power, whether they are origi¬
nally designed for flood control or navi¬
gation, will not increase the cost of the
dams anything like as much as it would
later cost to build a separate dam for
the purpose of producing power.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I might
Interject there, that the extra cost of
building the power features of the Fort
Peck Dam was represented by the cost of
the turbines only. The same dam was
there and it only required the extra ex¬
pense of installing the turbines.
Mr. BARKLEY. Take the Kentucky
Dam on the Tennessee Valley project at
Gilbertsville, Ky. At that dam locks and
dams were built for the puipose of navi¬
gation, but at the same time there were
built the sluices through which the water
runs and the turbines for the creation
of power. That was all a simultaneous
performance. Merely from my layman’s
knowledge I would not be able to allocate
how much of that cost would go into
the construction of turbines and how
much into the sluices; but it was all a
simultaneous operation; and it would
have been stupid for the Government
to have gone there and built a navigation
dam or a flood-control dam and not have
equipped it with facilities for producing
power at the same time.
Furthermore, if the Government is to
start out and build dams for navigation
or flood control and make no provision
whatever for the creation of power it
is extremely doubtful whether any pri¬
vate enterprise will ever undertake the
job of building a dam on a river in a
given locality solely for the production
of power. It is therefore economy on
the part of the people, who, after all,
have got to pay the cost either in taxes
or in charges for electric power, to con¬
struct these dams all in one enterprise
simultaneously, so that whatever may be
the use to which they may be put,
whether navigation, power, or flood con¬
trol, they may be available to be used for
that purpose without repeating the ex¬
pense and the energy necessary to build
another dam.
It is my honest opinion that if we now
reverse our course, if w^e reverse our
policy, as this amendment seeks to do in
a way — not completely, but it goes a long
way in the direction of reversing our
course — if we are to limit our construc¬
tion of dams either to flood control or
navigation without regard to any power
possibilities it will be a long time before
the people of the regions affected will
have an opportunity to use any power
that might be generated by the construc¬
tion of dams on the rivers we are talking
about.
I am not unconcerned, I will say to the
Senator from North Carolina, by the
question of expense. I know how easy
it is for us to become pessimistic about
the national debt and about our govern¬
mental expenditures. I am not indif¬
ferent at all to that phase of our public
economy. We are now paying in taxes
into the Treasury of the United States
about $45,000,000,000 a year; we will pay
into the Treasury of the United States
this year about $45,000,000,000, which is
approximately one-half of the cost of
the war for the year. A few years ago
that would have seemed like an incred¬
ible sum of money to raise in taxes from
the American people. It is more by
several billion dollars than all the Ameri¬
can people earned a few years ago in a
whole year’s activity. That gives no ex¬
cuse for extravagance; it gives no excuse
or basis for taking an optimistic view
that we can continue to pile up our debt
or our taxes without regard to our do¬
mestic economy, and I do not advocate
any such thing; but I believe that when
this war is over and we are able to assess
our obligations and charge off everything
that is a war expense and recover every¬
thing we can recover out of the expense
we have already incurred we will be able
to reduce our annual tax obligations any¬
where from 40 to 50 percent. I believe,
instead of paying in $45,000,000,000 a
year in taxes, as we are now doing, if we
can build a sound economy, if we can
build an economy that will give a job to
every man who wants a job at reasonable
wages and hold out a reasonable hone to
every man who has money to invest that
he can reap a reasonable profit from his
investment, the demand upon our capital
and upon our labor and our inventive
genius will enable us to maintain an an-’
nual income among the American people
of anywhere from $125,000,000,000 to
$150,000,000,000, and even greater than
that as we develop further our resources,
increase our Industrial activity, and re¬
ceive additional benefit from our inven¬
tive genius. We may reduce our tax
bill, without in any way being niggardly
in regard to our obligations to our sol¬
diers, our enterprises and our people, be¬
tween $22,000,000,000 and $25,000,000,000
a year.
I realize that that is an enormous
amount compared to the cost of our
8446
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Government 15 or 20 years ago, but we
are making that investment in order
that we may enjoy our liberty and our
independence as a nation. We could
have avoided all this expense if we had
been willing to take the chance of seeing
our way of life and our democracy and
our institutions go by the board; we
were not willing to do that; we are pour¬
ing out our treasure and our blood and
our lives in order that we may preserve
them. I believe that, with the exercise
of wisdom and with cooperation between
government and business and agricul¬
ture and all classes of our people, we
shall be able to build and maintain a
sound economy in this country which
will justify a reduction of our taxes
without doing injustice to any group or
person to whom we may be under obli¬
gation in the post-war period.
The effect of this amendment will be
that wherever there is any power cre¬
ated by the construction of any of these
dams it must be sold at the point of pro¬
duction. Nobody can build a transmis¬
sion line to use the power unless it be
a private enterprise or a corporation suf¬
ficiently large to indulge in that sort of
expenditure. Under this amendment
for 3 years at least the Government of
the United States will not be allowed
to build a transmission line, and even
at the end of the 3-year period it could
not build one if 90 percent of the power
was being purchased.
Let us take a case where nobody could
build a transmission line to the point of
production, not even a community, a
city, which desired to own its own electric
plant. I have never been a confirmed
advocate of municipal ownership in re¬
gard to public utilities, although I have
always believed and now believe that
when any city or town has the constitu¬
tional power to own its own municipal
plant, and the people are willing to vote
the necessary money to enable it to do it,
they have a right to do it and should
be allowed to do it.
There are in the United States many
cities, the people of which do exercise
the right to own their own municipal
plants. That is a matter of local self-
government. If they exercise that pow¬
er, and vote in order to do it, they should
not be denied the right to build a trans¬
mission line, if they desire, to the point
of producing the power, in order that
they may implement it with their own
action in deciding to own their own elec¬
tric plant.
Under the pending amendment they
could not do that under any circum¬
stances for 3 years, and they could not
do it at the end of 3 years if any private
enterprise had already contracted for 90
percent of the power; and no one could
do that except a utility of some kind.
No individual could do it, no municipality
could do it, and nobody could do it ex¬
cept a power company itself within the
3 -year period, and if within that 3 -year
period it had bought up 90 percent of
the power, everyone else would be shut
out.
In view of the fact that these rivers
belong to the people, and that by the
Constitution of the United States, the
power was reserved in the Congress to
November 2?
regulate them, I do not believe the peo¬
ple of any community, or that any pri¬
vate citizen who might be Interested,
should be denied the equal opportunity to
buy the power, which might be a denial
perpetually, because as long as 90 per¬
cent of the power was bought, no one else
v,'ould have any right to it, nobody else
could build a transmission line, even the
Government itself could not build one.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield so that I may give an ex¬
ample of the effect of the operation of
the amendment on a specific project?
Mr. BARKLEY. Yes; I am glad to
yield.
Mr. AIKEN. If the amendment
should be agreed to, the only possible
customer for St. Lawrence power on this
side of the St. Lawrence River would be
the Niagara-Hudson Power Co., in spite
of the fact that under the bill, public
power companies and cooperatives are
given first chance to buy the power. As
a matter of fact, not more than 10 per¬
cent of that power is expected to be used
by municipalities and cooperatives. The
extent to which cooperatives would ex¬
pand would depend upon the private
utilities themselves and whether they
were willing to deliver the power to un¬
served territory, or to territory now
served, at a fair price.
Another effect of the amendment
would be that the Niagara-Hudson Co.
being the only possible customer for this
power, the only possible purchaser, the
rural areas in the center of New York
State, at present unserved, would be un¬
able to get the power except at a price at
which the Niagara-Hudson Co. would be
willing to resell it to them. In the mean¬
time, if they got power from any source
whatsoever at a high cost, they would be
in the position of the private utilities
underselling them, actually underselling
a municipal plant, if operated at a loss,
and eventually creating a condition
whereby the cooperatives and the mu¬
nicipalities and public systems might be
finally forced to sell out to the private
utilities.
The amendment means that not only
would it put a stop to any expansion of
cooperative distribution lines, but it
means that undoubtedly many of them
would be forced eventually to give up the
ghost and go back to some private utility
system, even in territories which the
private companies absolutely refused to
serve a few years ago.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Kentucky yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. TAFT. If it is a sound proposi¬
tion for a cooperative within a reason¬
able distance of a Government plant to
have a transmission line to that plant,
why should it not be financed as a part
of the cooperative? Why is it neces¬
sary to have the Government go into the
general business of distribution of
power?
Recently three cooperatives in Ohio, at
my request, largely, and with my sup¬
port, have borrowed from the R. E. A.
over $2,000,000 to buy a private electric
distribution system. If the R. E. A. can
lend them $2,000,000 to buy such a sys¬
tem, why could they not lend them
$100,000, or a half million dollars, A
whatever might be necessary, to builcf^^
transmission line to the power? In oth^y
words, should not the building of trans¬
mission lines be based on financing the
particular cooperative, rather than made
a general question of Government con¬
struction and distribution, wherever the
Governmentmay wishto go? Why is the
Senator from Vermont correct in saying
it would destroy them? Why could they
not be financed through the R. E. A., if
they want to build transmission lines?
Mr. BARKLEY. The inference to be
drawn from the Senator’s question is
that while the Government itself should
not build a transmission line, it should
lend money to a cooperative in order to
enable it to build it, all the money to
come from the same source, which seems
to me to be a rather inconsistent atti¬
tude.
,Mr. TAFT, We do not base it on gen¬
eral discretion or deliberate permission
by the Government, or building of new
Government power projects, which, it
seems to me, is going to result from a
general policy of building transmission
lines.
Mr. BARKLEY. The policy we are
discussing, and which the amendment of
the Senator from North Carolina seeks
to reverse, is a policy we have adopted
all along, insofar as the distribution of
power is concerned. One of my objec¬
tions to the amendment is that it auto¬
matically creates only one market, at the
point of production, for the power, what¬
ever it may be, and that restriction is
limited to some concern which can build
its own transmission line to the point of
production. Unless there is such a con¬
cern in the community, then the power
would go to waste for at least 3 years.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. In just a moment.
If there is such an institution in a com¬
munity. it would have a monopoly for
3 years in the ability to buy that power,
and if at the end of the 3 years it was
taking 90 percent, it would continue to
have a monopoly, and no one else could
move it. No one else could build a trans¬
mission line, and the Government could
not build one.
Mr. TAFT. I suggest there is no dis¬
crimination, because we are backing the
cooperative to such an extent that if a
particular cooperative has a good case,
if it is a reasonably safe proposition, the
Government, through the R. E. A., capi
finance the building of a transmission
line to that particular cooperative.
Mr. BARKLEY. I agree that if the co¬
operative had enough with which to
build a transmission line from the point
of production, it might be able to do
so, provided the Authority did not dis¬
criminate against it in favor of some
other private enterprise which was will¬
ing to take the power, although I realize
the amendment says “without discrimi¬
nation.”
The point I make is that the Senator’s
inquiry shows that what he is willing to
do is to take money out of the Treasury
to lend to a cooperative with which to
build a transmission line, but he is not
willing, during the 3 -year period, or any
1944
8447
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
other period, if the private enterprise
has bought 90 percent of the power, to
permit the R. E. A. or anybody else to
build a transmission line into the point
of production, and be able to buy on
equal terms with any other competitor.
Mr. AIKEN. I cannot conceive of a
case in which we might have half a dozen
transmission lines running to the same
dam. The duplication of effort would
certainly make the electric energy cost
more for all consumers. I can conceive
of a situation in some sections of the
country where there might be 10 or 12
different cooperatives which could get to¬
gether and build their own transmission
line. But I would suggest to the Senator
from Ohio that perhaps after all the
final and proper solution of the existence
of this duplication of transmission lines
might be found in giving the transmission
lines the status of common carriers.
Then we would do away with the dupli¬
cation of lines which is so expensive to
customers all around.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I have
already taken more time than I had in¬
tended to consume. For the reasons I
have stated, I hope the amendment will
not be accepted by the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
think' it perhaps will be somewhat help¬
ful to a consideration of the so-called
Bailey amendment, which is in reality
a committee amendment, if I should un¬
dertake to give the history of the amend¬
ment and show what is really in con¬
troversy as between the Bureau of Rec¬
lamation and the proposal submitted by
the Senator from North Carolina.
When this matter first came before the
Committee on Commerce it came by way
of an amendment suggested by the Sec- '
retary of the Interior. The ameridment
he suggested is in line with the amend¬
ment proposed by the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Bailey] with the
exception of the concluding sentence of
the Bailey amendment. On page 2, lines
11 to 25, down to the word “cooperatives”
there is really no controversy as between
the Bailey amendment and the proposal
of the Department of the Interior. I
shall read it. It is very short. This is
the provision concerning which, as I un¬
derstand, there is no controversy:
Electric power and energy generated at
reservoir projects under the control of the
War Department and in the opinion of the
Secretary of War not required in the opera¬
tion of such projects shall be delivered to the
Secretary of the Interior, who shall trans¬
mit and dispose of such power and energy
in suc.i manner as to encourage the most
v/idespread use thereof at the lowest possible
rates to consumers consistent with sound
business principles, the rate schedules to be¬
come effective upon confirmation and ap¬
proval by the Federal Power Commission.
Preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives.
When the Secretary of the Interior
appeared before the committee he sug¬
gested as a part of his amendment these
concluding lines, and they relate to what
is now in controversy before the Senate.
I quote from page 311 of the hearings
on the flood-control bill:
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to construct and acquire such transmission
lines and facilities and to enter into such
contracts, agreements, and arrangements as
he deems necessary to carry out the duties
and responsibilities herein conferred upon
him.
Therefore the suggestion of the Sec¬
retary of the Interior was that he should
be vested with untrammeled and un¬
qualified power to construct and operate
transmission lines from all dams con¬
structed by the War Department.
A similar proposal has been made by
the Secretary of the Interior to the river
and harbor bill. When the river and
harbor bill was considered by the Senate
Commerce Committee, the committee in¬
serted in lieu of what the Secretary of
the Interior had recommended the fol¬
lowing :
Provided, That the Secretary of the Inte¬
rior is not authorized to construct or acquire
transmission lines in competition, direct or
indirect, with any existing company operat¬
ing transmission lines for the sale of electric
power; except as otherwise authorized by
other sections of this act relating to Uma¬
tilla Dam and the Snake River project.
Therefore the committee amendment
in the river and harbor bill, which was
the first one acted upon by the committee
and the first bill reported to the Senate,
in the proviso prohibited the Secretary
of the Interior from constructing or ac¬
quiring transmission lines which would
come in competition, direct or indirect,
with privately owned power companies.
After the river and harbor bill had
been reported, the Secretary of the In¬
terior, I understood and was advised,
objected very strenuously to the proviso
which has been inserted by the commit¬
tee, which prohibited the construction
by him of transmission lines which would
directly or indirectly compete with ex¬
isting companies. In an attempt to rec¬
oncile the differences between the com¬
mittee view and the view of the Secre¬
tary of the Interior, I called to my office
Mr. Goldschmidt. He is Director of the
Division of Power of the Department of
the Interior. He was therefore the rank¬
ing officer in the Department of the In¬
terior in relation to the distribution of
power from any and all dams. Accord¬
ing to the testimony which will be found
on pages 803, 804, and 805 of the record
of the hearings, it was shown that he
and I had gotten together with the view
of trying to compose the differences
which existed, and he then drafted an
amendment which he submitted and
which I shall read to the Senate. The
amendment which Mr. Goldschmidt pro¬
posed was:
Provided, That the Secretary of the In¬
terior is authorized to construct and ac¬
quire only such transmission lines and re¬
lated facilities as may be necessary in order
to make the power and energy generated at
said projects available in wholesale quan¬
tities for sale on fair and reasonable terms
and conditions to facilities owned by the
Federal Government, public bodies, coopera¬
tives, and privately owned companies.
Exception then being made in refer¬
ence to the Bonneville and Umatilla
Dams, which has no application to this
argument. That was the proposal made
by the Director of the Division of Power
in the Department of the Interior. I
assume, without knowing it, that the
Director of the Division of Power would
hardly have submitted such an amend¬
ment without the approval of the Sec¬
retary of the Interior.
When, therefore, we came to consider
the flood-control bill, Mr. Goldschmidt
having appeared before the full com¬
mittee, and made his statement and
given the reasons why he thought there
ought to be a modification of the amend¬
ment contained in the river and harbor
bill, there was inserted in the flood-con¬
trol bill the amendment suggested by
the Department of the Interior through
the Director of the Division of Power.
It reads exactly as it was submitted by
Mr. Goldschmidt. It now appears in
the printed copy of the flood-control bill
as it comes from the Committee on Com¬
merce, as follows:
The Secretary of the Interior is author¬
ized to construct and acquire only such trans¬
mission lines and related facilities as may
be necessary in order to make the power and
energy generated at said projects available
in wholesale quantities for sale on fair and
reasonable terms and conditions to facilities
owned by the Federal Government, public
bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned
companies.
That was the provision reported by the
Committee on Commerce.
Mr. WHEELER. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs.
Caraway in the chair). Does the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana yield to the Senator
from Montana?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WHEELER. Am I to understand
that the Interior Department is dissatis¬
fied with that provision?
Mr. OVERTON. I do not understand
that it is dissatisfied with it.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Madam
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
will recall, of course, that when this sub¬
ject was originally considered by the sub¬
committee of the Committee on Com¬
merce of which the distinguished Sena¬
tor is chairman, several questions were
injected into both the flood-control bill
and the river-and-harbor bill. The sug¬
gestion was seriously advanced by a dis¬
tinguished member of the committee,
namely, the distinguished Senator from
Nevada [Mr. McCarran], in response to
a question from me, that the Bureau of
Reclamation of the Interior Department
should have jurisdiction of the Coosa,
Ala., project, which is at least 800 miles
from the nearest reclamation project.
In other words, it is an effort of the In¬
terior Department to grab jurisdiction
of things with which it has nothing
whatever to do.
Mr. OVERTON. I am undertaking to
give the history of the amendment, which
I think will clarify the atmosphere.
In response to the question of the Sen¬
ator from Montana, let me say that Mr.
Ickes appeared before the comm.ittee in
the flood-control hearings, after we had
reported the river and harbor bill, which
prohibited him from building any trans¬
mission lines which would compete di¬
rectly or indirectly with existing com¬
panies. I read from a portion of the
statement of Secretary Ickes, to be found
8448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 22
on page 461 of the flood-control hear¬
ings:
Your committee reported out an amend¬
ment to the river and harbor bill which in¬
corporated the essentials of the policy to
which I refer except for a proviso limiting the
construction or acquisition of transmission
lines. You can be certain that I deeply ap¬
preciate your action in so doing. However, I
think that the restrictive proviso might weil
have been omitted. The reference to “in¬
direct” as well as “direct” competition with
any existing company operg,ting transmission
lines opens up a vast field for the exercise of
the fertile minds of those who not only op¬
pose Government transmission lines, but be¬
lieve that the power resulting from Federal
expenditures for water-resource conservation
should be disposed of in a way that will per¬
mit the gleaning of as large a private profit
as possible between the reservoir and the
ultimate consumer.
Therefore the only objection that Mr.
Ickes urged, as I recall his testimony, was
as to the proviso which prohibited any
indirect competition by the Bureau of
Reclamation in the construction of
transmission lines. Presumably, I take
it, to be perfectly fair, he objected as well
to the provision with respect to direct
competition. However, apparently he is
satisfied with the amendment originally
proposed by the Committee on Com¬
merce, which I read to the Senate a few
moments ago.
The other day we held a meeting of
the Committee on Commerce, called by
its distinguished chairman. He ex¬
pressed his dissatisfaction with the pro¬
vision in respect to power as contained
in the bill reported by the Committee on
Commerce, and stated his reasons, very
much as he has done upoh the floor of
the Senate. The Committee on Com¬
merce decided, by a very large majority,
to recommend the amendment suggested
by the chairman of the committee.
That is the history of the matter, and
shows exactly what is in controversy. I
should like to make a further observa¬
tion. Personally, so far as I am con¬
cerned, I wish that it had not been nec¬
essary to incorporate any irrigation or
power provision in the flood-control bill
or in the river and harbor bill. I wish
that those two bills could have been lim¬
ited, as they have been traditionally and
historically limited, to the mere author¬
ization of projects. After the projects
have been authorized, if any hydroelec¬
tric energy is created, some other com¬
mittee, in connection with some other
bill, should determine just how the
Bureau of Reclamation should handle
the power. However, the baby was placed
squarely on the lap of the Committee on
Commerce. We had to do something
about it, and we did the best we could.
That is my whole attitude toward the
question.
In this connection, let me make one
further observation. If by chance the
so-called Bailey amendment, or the com¬
mittee amendment as modified, is defeat¬
ed, I shall offer the committee amend¬
ment as presently contained in the bill,
and as originally recommended by the
Committee on Commerce. In order that
there may be no mistake about that, let
me read it;
The Secretary of the Interior Is authorized
to construct and acquire only such trans¬
mission lines and related facilities as may
be necessary in order to make the power and
energy generated at said projects available
in wholesale quantities for sale on fair and
reasonable terms and conditions to facilities
owned by the Federal Government, public
bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned
companies.
Mr. ELLENDER. Madam President,
will my colleague yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I understand,
section 5 was originally drafted by the
committee and voted upon by the com¬
mittee as reported to the Senate. I am
wondering what caused the committee
to change its attitude and adopt the
Bailey amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. The arguments pre¬
sented by the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. McClellan. Madam President,
upon a first reading of the pending
amendment I was inclined to give it
favorable consideration and possibly my
support. However, upon further study
of it, and considering the changes it
makes in the original committee amend¬
ment as printed in the bill, I have con¬
cluded that in its practical operation
and administration the harm and vio¬
lence which it would do to the program
would be greater than the benefits which
it would confer.
I think there are two extremes re¬
garding this power controversy. I
recognize on the part of the private
utilities, or at least some of them, a
policy or a desire, I would say first, to
prevent the construction by the Federal
Government of hydroelectric power
dams. I think in many cases, and with
respect to many of our power utilities,
they would prefer not to see any dams
at all constructed on our streams, ex¬
cept possibly for the purpose of flood
control. In other words they oppose the
construction of multiple-purpose dams.
Then, if such dams are to be constructed,
I think some of them are prompted by
selfish desires that they shall have the
advantages and the benefits which those
projects might afford to them by pro¬
viding cheap power which they might
acquire, through purchase, because in
many places and in most instances they
are already equipped with the facilities
for distribution, and they would like to
have all the benefit of what the Govern¬
ment has provided, and would like to
make distribution of it, at a very fine
profit to themselves. That is one ex¬
treme. It would afford a monopoly on
the part of private industry, on the part
of free enterprise, which would be at
the expense of the taxpayers of the
Nation and at the expense of the full
development of our natural resources
and the benefits which can be derived
from the construction of multiple-pur¬
pose dams.
On the other hand, I recognize that
there are forces or influences, possibly
on the part of some governmental
agencies, certainly on the part of some
who are strong advocates of public
power, which would like to carry this
program so far as ultimately to destroy
all private utilities, and thus to put the
Government exclusively into the busi¬
ness of power generation and distribu¬
tion.
I think those are the two extremes. I
do not believe either course is safe or
wise for our Government to follow.
Reference has been made today, I be¬
lieve, by the senior Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey], to the abuses
which were committed by, and the evils
which attended, private utility compa¬
nies in years past. Reference was made
by him, I believe, to the action of Con¬
gress some few years ago, at a time when
I was a Member of the House of Repre¬
sentatives, in passing the Holding Com¬
pany Act. I supported that bill, with a
view to eradicating or correcting an evil
practice or an evil situation which had
developed in the power industry.
There are possibly other abuses which
should be abolished and practices that
should be regulated or controlled. But
I do not go so far as to follow those who
would use the governmental powers to
the extent of destroying private enter¬
prise or, to be more specific, of putting
out of business the utility companies
which are established and which are
rendering a worth-while and an indis¬
pensable service in that field of endeavor.
I think there is room in this country
and in our industry for both the Gov¬
ernment and private enterprise to op¬
erate within their respective spheres of
influences and obligations in the genera¬
tion and distribution of power.
The amendment originally adopted by
the Senate Commerce Committee, and
as printed in the bill, I think comes
about as near being fair to both the
utilities and the Government as any pro¬
vision which has yet been developed or
proposed does. I call attention to the
part of it by which the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized “to construct and
acquire only such transmission lines and
related facilities as may be necessary in
order to make the power and energy gen¬
erated at said projects available in whole¬
sale quantities for sale on fair and rea¬
sonable terms and conditions to facilities
owned by the Federal Government, pub¬
lic bodies, cooperatives, and privately
owned companies.”
In my judgment, if that provision were
enacted and were properly administered,
there would be no discrimination. No
particular advantage would be given to
one over another — for instance, to pri¬
vate enterprise over cooperatives or over
public bodies. Certainly the provision is
broad enough in its terms to permit the
exercise of honest and sound discretion.
The real test of this section or pro¬
vision would be determined by the char¬
acter of administration which would be
applied to it.
There is just one thing which I should
like to add to the amendment originally
proposed by the Committee on Com¬
merce. I should like to see a portion of
the Bailey amendment incorporated as
an amendment to the committee amend¬
ment, to follow on line 7, after the word
“companies.” I should like to see this
much of the Bailey amendment adopted
as an amendment to the committee
amendment as originally proposed — I
quote from the Bailey amendment on
page 3 in line 2:
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8449
It shall be stipulated in connection with
any sale that any and all savings realized by
the purchasers shall be passed on under Fed¬
eral regulation where no State regulation
exists, to the consuming public.
I believe that to be a sound and wise
provision which should be incorporated
in any proposal estabUshing a policy with
reference to the sale and distribution of
power produced by hydroelectric dams.
Certainly no private utility should be per¬
mitted to buy power at a price at which
the Government can afford to sell it,
and then distribute it at retail on the
basis of what it may cost such private
utility to produce the power through
other means. In other words, if the cost
to the private utility of producing power
is 3 cents or 3 mills a kilowatt, or what¬
ever the cost may be, and it is able to
acquire power at wholesale prices from
the Government-operated facility at half
what it would cost the private utility to
produce it, such benefit should be passed
on to the ultimate consumer and the pri¬
vate utility should not be permitted to
make a profit on the cost of the produc¬
tion of this power. It should be per¬
mitted to make a fair profit in connec¬
tion with the distribution of the power.
I think the amendment would add an
additional and desirable safeguard to the
originally proposed committee amend¬
ment.
I cannot subscribe to or support the
last paragraph or provision of the Bailey
amendment. I agree with -those who
have interpreted the amendment and
concluded that it would merely place
power at the disposal of the private util¬
ity, and give it the advantage of such
power for the first 3 years. If the
private utility exercised the advantage
within the 3-year period, and contracted
for at least 90 percent of the power, it
would then have a continuous advantage
so long as the contract remained in
force. I see no sound reason for allow¬
ing a 3 -year period of time.
In the course of the construction of the
various projects, information will be
available as to what the approximate ca¬
pacity of each project will be, what the
output of electric energy will be at the
plant, and so forth. It would require
from 2 to 3 years to construct those
facilities, and during that period of time
the private utilities would have the op¬
portunity of making a contract and ex¬
tending their lines. Usually they would
already have extended their lines to the
project in order to supply the power
necessarily used in its construction.
I believe that an undue advantage
would be given to the private utilities by
the adoption of the proposed amendment.
We can easily see what the effect of it
would be. I believe the utilities are now
entitled to the advantages which they
would receive by reason of their present
position, and by reason of their ability
to move quickly and construct power
lines. A power line might have been
previously constructed to the facility.
The utilities might be in position to con¬
tract quickly and acquire control of the
power before public bodies such as co¬
operatives could bid for power, make a
contract for it, and participate in the
utilization of it. I see no sound reason
why the Government should not be au¬
thorized to build a distribution line, a
wholesale line, to some cooperative or to
three or four cooperatives, or to some
public body or municipality, if necessary,
in order to insure a fair and equitable dis¬
tribution of the benefits to the consum¬
ing public.
In many cases the utilities would be in
better position to make distribution of
the power. They would already be
equipped, and it would not be necessary
for them to build transmission lines.
However, I believe the opportunity which
may be granted to them should be safe¬
guarded.
Mr. BURTON. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. BURTON. I noticed during the
course of the Senator’s remarks that he
said he saw no reason why distribution
lines should not be built to reach the
consumers. I am sure he was referring
to transmission lines for wholesale and
not retail consumption.
Mr. McClellan. Yes.
Mr. BURTON. I believe that a trans¬
mission line is commonly regarded as one
which carries power for wholesale dis¬
tribution, and I understand that the Sen¬
ator is contending that the distribution
should be for wholesale and not retail
consumption.
Mr. McClellan. The Senator is
correct. I thank the Senator for his
statement.
Mr. HILL. Madam President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. HILL. The original committee
amendment, which the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana says he will of¬
fer if the so-called Bailey amendment
is voted down, distinctly provides that
the power generated at the various proj¬
ects shall be sold only in wholesale quan¬
tities. So the present debate really has
nothing to do with retail distribution.
Mr. McClellan. I did not intend
by my remarks to refer to retail distri¬
bution. I do not want to see the Fed¬
eral Government go into the retail pow¬
er business. I can understand, however,
that there might be conditions under
which the Government should perhaps
build a transmission line in order to make
power available. If the amendment of
the senior Senator from North Caro¬
lina were adopted, and if there should
be a serious controversy or disagreement
between the private utilities and the
Government as to price and other terms
incidental to the purchase of power, I
can foresee a period of perhaps 3 or 4
years after the dam had been construct¬
ed and power made available, when no
one would receive any benefit from it. I
believe the amendment of the senior
Senator from North Carolina goes a little
too far.
Mr. HILL. Madam President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Would not the amendment
tend to put the Government at the mercy
of the private power companies?
The Senator knows that power com¬
panies do not compete one with another
over either the purchase or the distribu¬
tion of power. They are tied together.
For many practical reasons they should
be tied together. One company in one
watershed should be tied with another
company in another watershed. V/hen
there is low water in one watershed, the
power company in the other watershed
should be in position to make up some
of the deficiency in output of electric
energy. But the companies do not all
compete one with another. We wish to
make sure that when a dam is con¬
structed, whatever power company hap¬
pens to be operating in that field shall
not be able to dictate to the Government
what it shall be paid for the power which
the project furnishes.
Mr. McClellan. That condition I
can well foresee.
Mr. HILL. The Senator saw that very
condition at the Wilson Dam, on the
Tennessee River, when the Federal Gov¬
ernment was compelled to sell power to
the private power company there for a
song, simply because there was nobody
else who could come there and build a
transmission line and compete with the
private power company for the purchase
of the power. The Government had to
take just what the private power com¬
pany was willing to give the Govern¬
ment.
Mr. McClellan. That is one thing
which I hope to see prevented by what¬
ever policy we adopt. I say this to the
Senator, however, on the other hand, I
would not want to see the agencies of
the Government which are entrusted
with the responsibility of selling or dis¬
tributing this power use the power of the
Government arbitrarily just to destroy
private enterprise for the very sake of
putting the Government in the power
business.
Mr. BAILEY. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I gladly yield to
the Senator.
Mr. BAILEY. What does the Senator
expect, if my amendment should be de¬
feated and the amendment originally in
the bill should prevail, except an arbi¬
trary use? That is my difQculty, and let
me explain it.
Under the amendment first proposed,
and now incorporated in the bill, but
proposed to be stricken out by the so-
called Bailey amendment, it is proposed
that the Secretary of the Interior should
be permitted to go to any city where
there is a power company operating,
selling power, transmitting electricity
from one of these dams, and let that city
buy it and abandon the power company.
Repeat that often enough, and see what
happens to the power companies. There
would be Government monopoly.
Since this debate began I have been
informed that there is one State in the
Union in which no power company is
operating, except in one city in the State,
and that company is soon to be ex¬
tinguished. Both the Senators frori
that State informed me of that fact. I
did not know we had gotten that far.
No. 161 - 4
8450
November 22
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
But having gotten that far in one State,
if we take the amendment originally
proposed, and which will be adopted in
case my amendment should be defeated,
we place ourselves exactly in that posi¬
tion.
I agree that if the Senator from Ar¬
kansas were to administer this matter
we might have a different tale to tell,
but I am confronted with the fact that
the law is to be administered down the
street here by the gentlemen and the
agencies which have moved successfully
to destroy all the power companies in
one State, and which — and I hope I do
not misjudge them— appear to me to be
bound upon destroying them everywhere
else in order that they may take them
over. Yet the Senator seems to think
that is a good proposition, and he is go¬
ing to vote for the amendment on the
ground that he thinks they will not
act arbitrarily. They have always acted
arbitrarily, and they will continue to
act arbitrarily, and they will act arbi¬
trarily by our authority.
Something has been said about get¬
ting the power to the local rural cooper¬
atives. The senior Senator from Ala¬
bama has submitted an amendment to
me which I am agreeing to accept — and
I think that situation will be out of the
picture when that amendment is
adopted— providing that the Government
can run transmission lines to a rural
electric association if they have none,
and they can borrow the money, or the
Government can put up the money. I
think that t.-.’-es out of this argument the
objection on the ground of the needs of
the rural population.
The Senators from the State which
they said had no electric private power
company operating in the State are go¬
ing to offer an amendment providing
that my amendment shall not relate
to their State. Of course, I shall accept
that. What am trying to do is to save
the existing private power companies
from a hopeless and ruinous competition.
Now, one other word, and I shall take
my seat. Some complaint is made here
that 3 years is too long a time, but I
notice that the Senators who object to
3 years do not propose to vote for the
amendment if we cut it down to 2 years,
and they do not propose to cut it down
to 2. I think the objection must be a
little more deeply rooted. I wrote in 3
years after conferring with the commit¬
tee, wholly on the ground of giving the
private power companies a fair oppor¬
tunity to build their lines and get the
electricity. My judgment is that they
will go after it, and they will know that
if they do not go after it, the Govern¬
ment will send it after them. I think
3 years is a reasonable time. However,
if there are Senators who object to 3
years, but will vote for the amendment
if I make it 2 years, I shall be very glad
to deal with them, but I do not think
that should be brought up unless it is a
serious objection which can be corrected
by an amendment.
I thank the Senator from Arkansas.
I took a little more time than I had
Intended to take.
Mr. McClellan. I merely wish to
say, in reply to one thing suggested by
the very able Senator from North Caro¬
lina, that I recognize, as does the Sen¬
ator, that no matter how diligent the
Congress may be in the writing of laws,
how just their provisions, if placed in
the hands of designing administrators
they can be abused, if any discretion is
allowed at all, and there must be a
measure of discretion entrusted in the
administration of all laws.
While I should like to prevent any
such abuse, I rather take this position,
that it is my duty as a legislator to try
to have laws passed which are just and
fair in their terms and provisions, laws
which can be administered equitably,
justly, and properly. This is the legisla¬
tive branch of the Government and I
have a duty in connection with legisla¬
tion. The administration of ‘the laws
we enact is the responsibility of another
branch of the Government, and of the
Chief Executive of the Nation.
I do not believe that we can adopt the
amendment offered by the senior Sena¬
tor from North Carolina without giving
an advantage or preference to the pri¬
vate utilities.
Mr. MALONEY. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator’s last
observation interests me very much. I
intend to support the amendment offered
by the senior Senator from North Caro¬
lina, although in the committee I as¬
sisted in its modification in what I
thought were important instances. I
should like to have the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas tell us wherein
he thinks this language gives a special
privilege to the private power companies,
because if it does, I shall change my view
about the amendment.
Mr. McClellan, just in the same
respect that the very able Senator from
North Carolina has pointed out, that un¬
der the committee amendment as orig¬
inally offered it can be abused. The same
thing is true of the Bailey amendment
with respect to private utilities. In most
cases they are already established, with
their power lines, they have an advan¬
tage, and they are naturally going to
object to a competing line being built
by a cooperative. Cooperatives are at a
disadvantage, largely because of finan¬
ces, in building transmission lines.
Many of them are some distance away,
and are not in a position to finance those
things for their own good, and there¬
fore it does place the private utilities at
a decided advantage in obtaining the
power, if it is handled under the pro¬
visions of the Bailey amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. Madam President,
will the Senator yield further?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. As I imderstand the
so-called Bailey amendment, private
companies are compelled to buy this
power or suffer competition. I would
assume they would buy it at whatever
price the Federal Government asked for
it.
Mr. McClellan, if the senator will
pardon me, let us assume they do not do
so, then what is the situation?
Mr. MALONEY. I am coming to that.
Then the Federal Government builds a
transmission line to sell the power. That
is clearly provided in the amendment, as
I understand it.
Mr. McClellan. After 3 years.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator from
North Carolina said he would change it
to 2 years, and I assume that if he were
pressed hard he would shorten the time
still more.
Mr. McClellan, why not take out
the provision?
Mr. MALONEY. There is no guaran¬
ty under existing circumstances that
they can get the equipment to build the
transmission lines right away, because
the authority over and the control of the
necessary equipment rests in the hands
of the Federal Government. I think that
is the answer to that question.
Mr. McClellan. The Senator is
simply referring to a war condition -
Mr. MALONEY. That is correct.
Mr. McClellan. And, of course, we
do not expect many of these projects to
be constructed xmtil after the war.
Mr. MALONEY. I myself would pre¬
fer that there be no limitation of time,
but I share the view of the able Senator
from North Carolina that we ought to do
everything we can to prevent a confisca¬
tion of private power in this country. If
we were to start all over again I think I
would favor public power. If we are
going to nationalize power now, we ought
to make certain that we do not do it by
way of confiscation and destruction.
Provision should be made to pay proper
and reasonable prices for the properties
with which the Federal Government
would be in competition. I think we have
a definite responsibility here. I do not
call myself a special friend of the power
interests. On all the votes we have taken
up to now in the Senate, if my memory
serves me well, I have been on the other
side of the issues. I voted for the death
sentence and other proposals which were
intended to take from power companies
what I thought were special privileges.
But we are here and now confronted with
a question of fairness, and I think the
amendment which we are now consider¬
ing has no other purpose.
Mr. BARKLEY. Madam President,
will the gentleman' yield?
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. BARKLEY. I simply wanted the
Senator to yield to me so I could make
an observation. Many Senators have
asked me if we wanted to dispose of this
amendment this afternoon, and after
conferring with the Senator from Louisi¬
ana [Mr. Overton] in charge of the bill,
I find it is desirable that we dispose of
the amendment this afternoon. I make
that statement so that Members of the
Senate will not leave the Chamber, so
we may dispose of the amendment one
way or the other.
Mr. McClellan. Madam President,
I have discussed my views of this mat¬
ter, and I state now that I shall move
the adoption of that sentence in the
Bailey amendment to which I have re¬
ferred as an amendment to the original
committee amendment in the event the
Bailey amendment is rejected.
Several Senators. Vote! Vote!
Mr. WHEELER. Madam President -
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. BAILEY. I suggest the absence of
a quorum in order that we may have a
full attendance.
Mr. WHEELER. I will not yield for
the purpose of the suggestion of the ab¬
sence of a quorum. I shall speak for only
a few moments.
Mr. BAILEY. I thought the Senate
was about to vote on the question. I did
not know that the Senator from Montana
intended to speak.
Mr. WHEELER. Madam President, I
wish to say that I concur fully in what
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Mc¬
Clellan] has just said. I do not know
that anything can be added to the state¬
ment he has made in reference to the
pending question. In view of the fact,
however, that the subject of utility hold¬
ing companies has been brought up, I
wish to say that when the bill providing
for the so-called death sentence was
pending before the Senate of the United
States speeches were made on the floor
of the Senate to the effect that we were
going to confiscate private enterprise
and put it out of business. The bill
Anally passed the Senate, as Senators
will recall, by only 1 vote. I happened
to be handling the bill, as chairman of
the Interstate Commerce Committee of
the Senate. The fight was probably one
of the bitterest occurring in the Senate
during my 20 years as a Member of this
body. Never was a more powerful lobby
congregated in the city of Washington
than there was at that time in an effort
to save the holding companies and to
permit the continuation of the bad prac¬
tices that had been perpetrated upon
the American people by the holding com¬
panies of this country.
Madam President, we now hear talk
about confiscating property. The Sen¬
ator from North Carolina has called at¬
tention to the difference between the cost
of producing power by private enterprise
and by the Government, and he has
pointed out the difference very carefully
and very correctly. I wish to call atten¬
tion to the fact that some of those who
are advocating this particular amend¬
ment in the interest of and protection of
private enterprise are also advocating, at
the same time, that the rivers of this
country shall be widened and deepened
at the expense of the Government — and
for what purpose? For the purpose of
setting up competition with other forms
of transportation and with private en¬
terprise. Those who advocate the widen¬
ing and deepening of rivers do so not only
for the purpose of permitting great cor¬
porations to send their vessels up and
down the rivers but to keep the channels
open year after year at the expense of
the Government of the United States.
The railroads of this country pay in¬
come arid other taxes. The same indi¬
viduals who are talking about competi¬
tion on the part of the Government with
private enterprise on the one hand, are
also supporting legislation providing for
the deepening and widening of rivers.
If one proposal is wrong, then the other
is wrong. When the Government builds
dams it does so at Government expense,
because no private enterprise will at¬
tempt to build them. The Government
builds dams — for what purpose? For
the purpose of saving property. Those
who want, private property saved by such
means cannot build the dams them¬
selves. No private enterprise can do so
or will do so. Therefore the Government
steps in and does it.
Mr. BAILEY. Madam President, will
the Senator yield for an interruption?
Mr. WHEELER. I yield.
Mr. BAILEY. I think the Senator’s
statement is correct generally, but it is
certainly not correct with respect to
North Carolina. In North Carolina the
Government is saying to corporations
which wish to develop sites which they
have bought, “You shall not build dams
for power.’’ One such project was con¬
tained Jn this bill, and I had it stricken
out yesterday. The money was avail¬
able. The engineers were ready to build
a dam at Tuckertown. The Power Com¬
mission said “No.” Another project was
at Nantahala, for a 500-foot-high dam
which would cost private enterprise
$27,000,000 and cost the Government
$40,000,000 or $50,000,000, but the Gov¬
ernment said, “You shall not build it.
We will build it.” We have come to the
point where the Government controls
the source of the power and intends even
to control the distribution.
Mr. WHEELER. I do not know about
the particular case to which the Senator
refers, but generally when the Govern¬
ment builds flood-control projects it
does so because private enterprise will
not build them and cannot afford to
build them.
Mr. BAILEY. Private enterprise does
not come into flood-control projects
anywhere, but I do not think the Senator
can And a good power site in America on
which private enterprise would not build
if the Government would not lay hands
on it.
Mr. WHEELER. Of course, private
enterprise will not build flood-control
projects because there is no profit in
doing so, and if there is no profit in such
construction private enterprise wants the
Government to construct it. When a
canal does not make money private en¬
terprise desires to unload it on the Gov¬
ernment, as was done with the Cape Cod
Canal some years ago, and as is being
done with reference to the canal along
the B. & O. Railroad. I am in favor of
private enterprise, but I am in favor of
private enterprise being regulated.
Take the case of the radio broadcasting
chains. The Republican Party adopted
a plank in its platform to the effect that
there should be no regulation of radio
broadcasting chains in this country aside
from the regulation of the mechanics of
the operation of the radio. However,
that is beside the point. When these
great dams are built, as I understand,
they are built essentially for flood con¬
trol, and not for power purposes.
Mr. MALONEY. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. WHEELER. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to note
also, as did the Senator from North Caro¬
lina [Mr. Bailey], that in connection
with flood-control projects the States of
New England made a very strong effort
to establish an interstate compact on
8451
flood control, and the pact was rejected
by the Congress in 1937.
Mr. WHEELER. Frankly, I believe
that when private enterprise wishes to
build dams for flood control, or other
purposes, and it can do as good a job as
the Government in the prevention of
floods, it ought to be permitted to do so,
and the Federal Government ought not to
step in. I am assuming — perhaps I am
mistaken — that these flood-control proj¬
ects are being built by the Government
essentially for flood control. However,
in the case of every dam v/hich is built,
there is bound to be some primary power
developed: and if the Government can
recoup some of the money which it has
put into such a project, it ought to be
permitted to do so.
Mr. MALONEY. Madam President,
will the Senator further yield?
Mr. WHEELER. Let me finish. For
example, take the Fort Peck Dam. The
Government had a transmission line,
and installed a power plant. The project
was in eastern Montana, where there
were no large cities. The transmission
line was originally built for the purpose
of taking power from the Montana Pow¬
er Co. and transmitting it into eastern
Montana. Power was necessary for the
construction. If that transmission line
had not been there, a transmission line
would have had to be built. I do not
think the Montana Power Co. would ever
have built it. But the power v;as bought
because the transmission line was there,
and the power was used for very neces¬
sary war purposes.
Many dams will be built along the
Missouri River, where there are no large
cTies. It seems to me that in some in¬
stances transm_isf5ion lines must be built
in order to sell the power. If they are
not built, the private power companies
may say, “We do not want to buy that
power. We have all the local power we
need, and we are not going to buy it.”
Then it will be necessary to wait for 2 or
3 years to sell it.
Mr. MALONEY. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. WHEEI ER. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator makes a
good argument so far as it goes, and I
share his feeling that when a dam is
constructed for flood-control purposes
and there is a potential use for power
which might be developed, even though
at some distant time, provision ought to
be made in the construction of such a
dam for power uses at a later date. I
quite agree with that statement. I think
it would be sinful to build a large flood-
control dam in an area in which power
might be used at some later date, with¬
out taking the necessary steps to make
pov/er later available. However, I can¬
not see how this amendment trespasses
on that idea.
Mr. WHEELER. Of course, it does not
trespass on the idea that provision may
be made for power in the future.
Mr. MALONEY. The amendment is
much more generous than that. This
amendment does not frown on power
dams.
Mr. WHEELER. I understand that
thoroughly. The Senator misunder¬
stood me if I gave him a contrary im-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 22
8452
pression. It may be that In connection
with some of these dams there will be
no power provision. It seems to me that
will depend entirely upon conditions.
Apparently what is troubling the Sen¬
ator from North Carolina is that he is
fearful, and does not trust someone in
the department with reference to these
matters. There may be some excuse for
such a feeling. There may be those in
the departments who are anxious to go
into the power business and put private
industry out of business. I believe that
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McClel¬
lan] stated the situation very correctly
when he said that after all, as Members
of the Congress of the United States, our
duty is to enact legislation, and that we
must give some discretion to the various
departments. I do not like to give them
too much discretion. When I first came
to the Senate I did not want to give them
any discretion, because of the fact that
I had had experience dealing with them
in land matters, and as United States at¬
torney. I thought, even in those days,
that they made rules and regulations
which were reprehensible.
Mr. MALONEY. It seems to me that
the Senator is still pretty reluctant to
give them discretion.
Mr. 'WHEELER. That is true; but we
must give them certain definite powers
and discretion. If we have men in the
various offices in whom we have no con¬
fidence, men whom we cannot trust, and
who violate the intent of the Congress,
then the Congress ought to get rid of
them, or see that they are eliminated.
Mr. MALONEY. If the Senator will
yield to me for a moment, I should like
to suggest that that is a pretty far¬
fetched observation. I am not lacking
in confidence in those who would admin¬
ister this procedure. I think I know what
they would do. I believe that there are
those within our Government — a great
many of them — who believe in the na¬
tionalization of power, and I believe that
they would go about it without much
delay. I think that is the issue involved
here. I do not wish to see that done
until we devise a way to make proper
payment to those owning private power
companies. Heretofore I have submitted
an amendment to provide such protec¬
tion. If the Federal Government wishes
to enter that field, and will pay the proper
price, it is all right with me. But mil¬
lions of American people have money
invested in private power companies.
There are private power companies with
bad records, and there are private power
companies with good records. I believe
in rigid regulation. I do not wish to
take any uncertain steps, however, which
might be avoided.
I see in this amendment a mild and
modest attempt to indicate a Federal
policy. We are entirely without one now.
We are scattered all over the field.
There is a great difference of opinion
within the Government as to how we
should deal with the power question.
I wish to point out to the Senator, be¬
cause he makes so much of it, that the
Senator from North Carolina has indi¬
cated his willingness to cut down the
period of waiting time before the power
is sold.
Mr. WHEELER. I do not think there
should be a waiting time, as has been
pointed out on the floor of the Senate
by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Barkley] and the Senator from Arkan¬
sas [Mr, McClellan]. When power
projects are being built, we know what
power is to be developed. We know,
before the construction is begun, the
amount of primary power which is to be
developed.
Mr. MALONEY, I do not quarrel with
the Senator on that point. I should be
willing to see the time limit stricken out,
Mr. WHEELER. It should be stricken
out. When the construction of a dam is
commenced, those in charge know the
amount of primary power which is to be
developed. They knew it in the case of
the Fort Peck Dam. They know it in
the case of every other dam which is
being built. If we cannot build a trans¬
mission line so that the power may be
sold, we shall be absolutely at the mercy
of some power company at practically
every place where one of these dams is
built. The power company will be able
to say, “You can sell us this power for
so much, or you cannot sell it at all.”
We shall be tied up for an indefinite pe¬
riod of time, and will not be able to build
any transmission lines. It seems to me
that that is a mistaken policy.
When we talk about confiscating the
property of private owners and not pay¬
ing them enough, I should like to have
someone tell me when the Government
has ever taken any piece of private prop¬
erty anywhere in the United States and
has not paid a most generous price for it.
Will any Senator stand on this floor and
tell me of any time when the Govern¬
ment has ever taken a piece of property
and has not only paid a generous price
for it but generally has paid far more
than the property was worth?
I happened to be a member of the con¬
ference committee which considered the
bill providing for the taking over of some
of the properties of the Commonwealth
& Southern Corporation. I sat in the
conference committee room with the late
Senator Norris. I saw the Members of
the House of Representatives who were
members of the conference committee
come there and argue. I saw the late
Senator Norris, who then was in his de¬
clining years, sit in that conference room
with tears streaming down his face be¬
cause of the fact that he thought the
conference report would not be adopted.
I said to him, “Do not worry about it. It
is going to be adopted because of the fact
that the power interests will get $10,-
000,000 more than the property is worth.”
But, Madam President, were they sat¬
isfied with it? Was the late Mr. Willkie
satisfied with the price he received?
Was the Commonwealth & Southern sat¬
isfied with the price it received? They
were delighted to unload the property on
the Government of the United States for
the price they were paid, and I happen
to know it.
, So when we talk about taking over pri¬
vate property and not paying for it, let
me say that the Government always has
paid most generously for everything it
has ever taken over, whether it be a
dog, a house, a cow, or a piece of prop¬
erty anywhere in the United States.
I agree that there are some good power
companies and there are some bad power
companies, depending upon the kind of
management they have. I also agree
with the senior Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey] that some of the
power companies did a great service
when they started and developed their
companies. There is no question about
that.
I am not in favor of having the Gov¬
ernment of the United States go into the
retail power business.
Mr. MALONEY. Madam President,
will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. WHEELER. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. Would the Senator
have objection to this proposal if the
time limitation were stricken out?
Mr. WHEELER. I do not know that
I would. I am inclined to think that
possibly I would not.
Mr. MALONEY. I am anxious to see
us take a step toward the formulation of
a Federal power policy. As I understand
the discussion here, the only objection
raised by the able junior Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. McClellan] and the able
senior Senator from Montana [Mr.
Wheeler] is regarding the limitation of
time. I have very good reason to believe
that the author of the amendment is
willing to remove that limitation.
Mr. WHEELER. I would not wish to
commit myself definitely at this time
with reference to it, but I think the pro¬
vision which was originally ladopted by
the committee does adopt a policy.
Madam President, at this point I wish
to place in the Record several telegrams
which I have received from Montana.
One of them reads as follows:
PoLSON, Mont., November 21, 1944.
Hon. B. K. Wheeler,
Washington, D. C.:
The Bailey amendment to H. R. 4485 Is ab¬
solutely the wrong theory. United States bar
sales to any group as of law and practice by
the Bonneville Power Administration is cor¬
rect practice for fair distribution to every¬
one. Please use your influence to have the
flood-control legislation to the beneflt of all
communities and groups along the water¬
ways to the very source of the streams.
Board of Commissioners; Mission Irri¬
gation District, Ray Biggerstaf,'
secretary; W. A. Jensen; Earl S.
Ferrell; Stella M. Upham; Poison
Chamber of Commerce, Louis
Pratt, president; Reservoir Valley
Grange, Lola Wolflnger, secretary;
T. R. Delaney, attorney; W. L.
Rader, publisher, Flathead Courier;
F. N. Hamman, lawyer; Lloyd I.
Wallace.
I happen to know most of the signers
of the telegram. Most of them are very
good Republicans, particularly the law¬
yer, the last person who signed the tele¬
gram, who has just been elected a State
senator on the Republican ticket. Also
all the members of the board of county
commissioners are Republicans.
I also hold in my hand a telegram from
Mr. A. F. Winker, chairman, and Mr.
Don Treloar, secretary, of the Fiathead
■Valley Citizens Committee. I ask unani¬
mous consent that this telegram be
printed in the Record as a part of my
remarks.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8453
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
Kalispell, Mont., November 21, 1944.
Hon. B. K. Wheeler,
Senator from Montana,
Washington, D. C.:
We understand an amendment to the flood
control bill seeks to prohibit Government
sale of power except from the bus bars at the
dams. Such an amendment, if made into
law, would Jeopardize the entire Northwest
program for development and sacrlflce huge
Government transmission facilities to self¬
ish interests. We desire to express our dis¬
approval of such action and urge you do
everything you can to preserve the status
quo In the Northv/est as it pertains to distri¬
bution sale of power. If amendment cannot
be stricken out immediately, we believe it
should at least be delayed until an adequate
opportunity is provided to oppose it. We
feel that the aspirations of this Northwest
States region hinge upon the defeat of this
amendment, which we understand has been
presented by Senator Ballet.
A. F. Winker, Chairman,
Don Treloar, Secretary,
Flathead Valley Citizens Committee.
Mr. WHEELER. Madam President, I
sincerely hope that the so-called Bailey
amendment will be defeated, and that
the amendment which was first recom¬
mended by the committee will be adopted
by the Senate.
Mr. HILL. Madam President, I do not
desire to delay the vote on the pending
amendment, but I feel so strongly about
the amendment that I do not wish to
have a vote taken on it without first
voicing my vigorous protest against its
adoption.
The senior Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. Barkley], the junior Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. McClellan], and the
senior Senator from Montana [Mr.
Wheeler], have stated the reasons why,
in their opinion, and also in my opinion,
the amendment should not be adopted.
I do not wish to detain the Senate in
order to reiterate the arguments they
have made.
As those Senators have well stated, the
adoption of this amendment would, in
their opinion, and also in my opinion,
result in giving special favors to the pri¬
vate power companies, and in practically
denying rural cooperatives and public
power bodies an opportunity to purchase
the power which might be generated at
these fiood-control projects.
The amendment which was originally
reported to the Senate by the Committee
on Commerce provides that transmission
lines can be built only for sale of such
power in wholesale quantities and for the
purpose of giving a fair and reasonable
opportunity to facilities owned by the
Federal Government, public bodies, co¬
operatives, and privately owned com¬
panies.
If the Bailey amendment is adopted as
a part of the bill, it might well be that
there w'ould be some other Federal proj¬
ect in close proximity to one of these
flood-control projects, and that the other
Federal project would not be able to ob¬
tain the power needed for its own oper¬
ation. Certainly, the practical effect of
the amendment would be that public
power bodies generally and rural coop¬
eratives would not obtain any of this
power. It would go to the private power
companies. As I have endeavored to in¬
dicate in the questions I asked on the
floor of the Senate earlier in the day, it
would not only go to the private power
companies, but, as the amendment is
now written, it would go to them largely
on their own terms. As we know, and
as I have said here before, there is no
competition between private power com¬
panies, either in the matter of the pur¬
chase of power or in the matter of the
distribution and sale of power. They
are tied together; and, as I have said, to
be fair to them, in many cases it works
in the public interest for them to be tied
together. But they do not bid one
against the other for the purchase of
power.
The result would be that the private
power company which was nearest the
particular flood-control project would
obtain the power from that project, and
the Government would be at a great dis¬
advantage in attempting to get the best
price for the power, inasmuch as the
private power company would not have
any competition, would not have anyone
bidding against it or competing with it,
for the purchase of the power.
As has been stated here, the amend¬
ment represents a reversal of our policy.
Beginning in 1906, with the passage of
the reclamation law, the Congress
adopted a policy of at least giving an
equal opportunity to public-power bodies
for the purchase of power generated at
projects built with funds provided by the
Federal Government. In many of the
acts passed since 1906, Congress has gone
further than merely to give public-power
bodies and rural cooperatives an equal
opportunity. Congress has given them
a preference.
As I recall, we granted preferences in
the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, in
the operations of the Fort Peck Dam,
and the Bonneville and Grand Coulee
Dams. The public power bodies, which
are not operated for private profit but
for the benefit of the people served by
them, and the rural cooperatives, which
are not operated for profit but for the
benefit of farmers and members of the
cooperative, have been given preferences
for the purchase of power.
We would now reverse the policy. We
would not only deny any preference but
even an equal opportunity to the public
power bodies or the rural cooperatives
to buy any of the power.
My distinguished friend from North
Carolina — and there is no abler Member
of this body, nor one who is more per¬
suasive or appealing — stated today that
he felt that if we did not reverse our
existing policy the private power com¬
panies would be put out of business. I
share no such fears. I hold no such
views. We were told exactly the same
thing when we had before us the bill
providing for the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority. We were told exactly the same
thing when we had before us the bill in¬
volving the dissolution of holding com¬
panies.
The truth is. Madam President, that
the Tennessee Valley Authority brought
about the dissolution of the Tennessee
Electric Power Co. by its purchase of
that company. Because the Tennessee
Valley Authority did not wish to build
competing lines and be in the position
of impairing, if not destroying private
property and private enterprise, it pur¬
chased the company to which I have
referred. So the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority compensated at a handsome
price the owners of the Tennessee Elec¬
tric Power Co. for every dollar’s worth
of its property.
So far as the Alabama Power Co. is
concerned, the Georgia Power Co., and
power companies serving Mississippi,
Kentucky, and other adjoining States, I
do not hesitate to say that instead of be¬
ing inimical or harmful to the private
power companies, the operation of the
Tennessee Valley Authority has been
most helpful to them. It forced them to
put their operations upon a fair, sound,
efficient, and businesslike basis. Instead
of hurting them it has made customers
for them. It has made people power
minded. It has caused companies to re¬
duce their power rates. They are selling
far more power today than they ever
dreamed of selling before the Tennessee
Valley Authority was created.
In the Birmingham area we are served
principally by the Birmingham Electric
Power Co., which is a private company.
The Tennessee Valley Authority also fur¬
nishes power to Bessemer and the ad¬
jacent area.
The fact that the Tennessee Valley
Authority came into that area and is to¬
day, and has been for some time, selling
power did not put the private power
company out of business. It brought
about seven reductions in the rates for
power charged by the private power
companies to the people of the Birming¬
ham area. But that power company is
still operating today. If we look at the
quotation of its stock on the stock mar¬
ket,, we find that it is in a sound and
healthy condition, paying good divi¬
dends, selling more power and to more
customers than it has ever sold before,
and that it is in a better condition
financially than ever before.
Madam Presideht, the question before
the Senate is not one of destroying pri¬
vate power companies or private enter¬
prise. The question is merely one of
permitting all the people to have a fair
and equal opportunity to obtain the
power which will be generated at the ex¬
pense of the Federal Government.
There is no intention of the Federal Gov¬
ernment to enter widely into the power
business. The truth is that under the
language of the amendment which the
committee first reported, and which, if
the Bailey amendment is defeated, will
be offered by the Senator from Louisiana,
transmission lines could be built only
for the sale of power in wholesale quan¬
tities. No authority is provided in the
amendment as originally reported by the
committee for any retail distribution of
power.
Madam President, we talk of private
enterprise, but let me say that the great¬
est thing which has ever come to the
section of the South in which I have the
honor to live has been the T. V. A. One
of the greatest things the T. V. A. has
done for that area has been to encourage
8454
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 22
and help the building of private enter¬
prise. In that great section of our coun¬
try we have more private enterprise and
private business operating on a sound,
stable, and prosperous basis than we ever
had before. It is because of the advent
of the T. V. A.
Madam President, I hope this amend¬
ment will be defeated. I hope the Sen¬
ate will do nothing which might result in
taking funds of all the people and giving
to a certain group the benefits derived
from the expenditure of such funds. I
hope that by no act of the Senate will
private power companies be given a fixed
or vested interest in the power to be
derived from flood-control projects.
I feel so deeply about this amendment.
Madam President, that if it is adopted I,
for one, will hope that the bill will never
become law.
Mr. PEPPER obtained the floor.
Mr. WHITE. Madam President, will
the Senator yield in order that I may
make an inquiry?
Mr. PEPPER. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. I wonder if it is the dis¬
position of the Senator in charge of the
bill to conclude consideration of the
pending amendment this evening. It is
now almost 5 o’clock. If my information
is correct, amendments are to be offered
to the committee amendment as modi¬
fied. I think it is very dubious whether
we can complete consideration of the
pending matter in a short time.
Mr. OVERTON. I do not know of any
amendm.ents to be offered.
Mr. BAILEY. Madam President, I
have received notice of three amend¬
ments to be offered.
Mr. OVERTON. Are they to be offered
to the committee amendment as modi¬
fied?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes. We can go ahead
and vote, of course.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Madam
President, I have an amendment which
I intend to offer on my own behalf. I
think it will protract the debate.
• Mr. PEPPER. Madam President, I am
in a position to advise Senators who are
interested that what I have to say will
not take more than 5 minutes, and will
not prevent a vote being taken this after¬
noon.
Mr. WHITE. Madam President, if the
Senator from Florida will further yield,
it is my impression that there are amend¬
ments which will be offered and dis¬
cussed. I do not believe that the amend¬
ment now pending can be disposed of
until a substantially later time. In view
of the fact that this is not the night be¬
fore Christmas, but is the night before
Thanksgiving, and that some Senators
may desire to leave the city, I wonder if
further consideration of the amendment
could not go over until Friday.
Mr. OVERTON. I am glad to accept
the suggestion.
Mr. BARKLEY. If there are several
other amendments to be offered to the
pending amendment, and several other
speeches to be made, it is obvious that we
cannot reach a vote on the amendment
today. I wonder if we cannot enter into
an agreement for a limitation of debate
when we resume consideration of the
amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. I hope so.
Mr. BARKLEY. I therefore will at¬
tempt to feel out the sentiment of the
Senate and see whether it may be pos¬
sible to get a vote on the Bailey amend¬
ment and all amendments thereto.
Would 15 minutes be too much time?
Mr. BAILEY. Madam President, I can
speak only for myself. I would not want
more than 10 minutes, but there are some
amendments.
Mr. BARKLEY. To the Bailey amend¬
ment?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes. I should like under
the circumstances to have enough time
to say whether they are agreeable or not.
But I do not intend to make any argu¬
ment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I think we might very
well enter into a 15 -minute limitation on
the Bailey amendment and all amend ■
ments thereto. Therefore I ask unani¬
mous consent that during the further
consideration of the Bailey amendment,
no Senator shall speak more than once
or longer than 15 minutes.
Mr. BAILEY. I am willing to limit the
debate to 5 o’clock, or until 10 minutes
after 5.
Mr. BARKLEY. So am I, but I do not
think we can get such a limitation.
There are several Senators who wish to
address the Senate. I am suggesting
that during the further consideration
of the Bailey amendment, or any amend¬
ment thereto, no Senator shall speak
longer than 15 minutes.
Mr. BAILEY. I think that might re¬
sult in a prolongation of the debate in¬
definitely, and I shall be very frank with
the Senator. I should like to have a vote,
and I am perfectly willing to have a vote
by 10 minutes after 5, which will be 15
minutes from now. If the debate is to
be prolonged and I must stay here, I may
say that I had a great deal of work in
the committee in the matter of the St.
Lawrence seaway, and I came out of the
committee after that morning’s work,
and without taking my seat, I found I
had to speak. I have been proceeding
all day. I can go a little while longer,
but not much longer. That is my situa¬
tion.
Mr. BARKLEY. I was basing my re¬
quest on the suggestion that a number of
other Senators desire to address the Sen¬
ate, and also that two or three or four
amendments are to be offered to the Sen¬
ator’s amendment. In that event, it is
obvious we could not conclude the debate
today.
Mr. BAILEY. That is correct.
Mr. BARKLEY. It was on that basis
I was seeking to obtain a limitation of
debate on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
McFarland in the chair) . Is there ob¬
jection to the request of the Senator from
Kentucky?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. May the re¬
quest of the Senator from Kentucky be
restated^
BARKLEY. I ask unanimo
ia-
consent that during the further consi
eration of the pending amendment,
known a's the Bailey amendment, no Sen¬
ator shall speak more than once or longer
than 15 minutes on the amendment or
any amendment thereto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request?
Mr. AIKEN. As the Bailey amend¬
ment is an amendment to a committee
amendment, can there be further amend¬
ments offered to the Bailey amendment?
Mr. BARKLEY. The Bailey amend¬
ment now occupies the status of a com¬
mittee amendment, so that the inquiry
propounded by the Senator may be an¬
swered in the affirmative.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator means per¬
mission has been given to the committee
to modify the amendment so as to in¬
clude the Bailey amendment? Is that
correct?
Mr. BAILEY. There was no permis¬
sion in the committee, but I take it I
can either agree to an amendment or
not. I did not think there had been any
rule to the contrary. I did not think
there had been any rule to that effect.
There may have been one since the Sen¬
ator from Vermont came to the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. There is no rule
against a committee modifying its own
amendment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I had understood
from the Senator from Louisiana that
the Bailey amendment had been put in
such a position that it is a committee
amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. It is, and is reported
in lieu of the original amendment.
Mr. BARKLEY. It displaces the orig¬
inal amendment offered by the commit¬
tee?
' Mr. OVERTON. That is correct.
Mr. BARKLEY. So that it is an
amendment in the first degree, and
amendments to it would be in order.
Mr. AIKEN. That is the information
I was seeking.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, it is un¬
derstood that if the request for a limita¬
tion on debate shall be agreed to, we will
recess at this time?
Mr. BARKLEY. I think that we might
as well, in view of the situation. That
is my purpose.
Mr. OVERTON. I wonder if we could
conclude the debate by 2 o’clock Friday.
Mr. BARKLEY. I expect we have got¬
ten about all we can get today in the
way of an agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Kentucky? 'Tire Chair hears none,
and the re^iue.st i.s agreed to. _ _ —
t^-MrrPEPPER. Mr. President, is it the
desire of our able leader to carry this
subject over until Friday, or are we to
have a session tomorrow?
Mr. BARKLEY. It is not my desire;
I had hoped we might dispose of the
amendment, but the situation is such
that I think we must carry it over.
Mr. PEPPER. Very well. Then I
shall desist. I should like to ask, if it is
not inconsistent with the views of the
leader, that I have the floor when we
resume the discussion of this subject.
Mr. BARKLEY. I think that is not a
very good practice in the Senate. There
will be no difficulty about the Senator
getting the floor.
Mr. PEPPER. Very well. At least I
serve notice that I shall ask for the
floor when we reassemble.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, if it
is in order, I desire to give notice now
that when afforded the opportunity Fri¬
day I shall offer an amendment which
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944
would strike out on line 8, page 3, of the
amendment the words “demanded or”
and the words “within 3 years after,”
and to insert before the word “comple¬
tion” the word “upon,” so that the
amendment of the Senator from North
Carolina would at that place read as
follows:
That unless 90 percent of the firm power
produced at such projects shall be purchased
upon completion of construction of such
projects, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to construct transmission lines
for the purpose of selling such power at
wholesale.
Mr. MALONEY subsequently said:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment concerning which
I gave notice that I would offer Friday
be now printed and lie on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment will be re¬
ceived, printed, and lie on the table.
GRAVES COUNTY, KY., MEETS WAR BOND
QUOTA FIRST DAY
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I have
a telegram which I desire to read into the
Record as an example and an inspiration
not only to the Senate, but to all parts
of the country. The telegram comes
from Graves County, Ky., in which I was
born. It is addressed to me from May-
field, and is dated November 21:
Graves County went over its War bond
quota first day.
That was the 21st.
Campaign was sponsored by the Lions Club,
Rotary Club, Kiv/anls Club.
The telegram is signed by Lara Barron
and W. F. Foster. Miss Barron and Mr.
Foster have been in charge of all the
War bond drives in Graves County, and
they have done a magnificent job in go¬
ing beyond their quota every time bonds
have been offered for sale. It is very
gratifying to me, as a native of the
county, to be advised that on the first
day of the present bond drive they have
gone over their quota. That does not
mean they are going to relax in their
efforts to sell morq bonds, but they were
able on the first day to more than fill the
quota assigned to the county, and it is a
pleasure to me to read this telegram into
the Record at this point.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. BARKLEY. I move that the Sen¬
ate proceed to the consideration of
executive business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration
of executive business.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc¬
Farland in the chair) laid before the Sen¬
ate messages from the President of the
United States submitting several nomi¬
nations in the Marine Corps, which were
referred to the Committee on Naval Af¬
fairs.
(For nominations this day received, see
the end of Senate proceedings.)
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following favorable reports of
nominations were submitted:
By Mr. BILBO, from the Committee on the
District of Columbia:
Guy Mason, of the District of Columbia,
to be a Commissioner of the District of Co¬
lumbia for a term of 3 years, and until his
successor is appointed and qualified (reap¬
pointment) .
By Mr. CONNALLY, from the Committee
on Foreign Relations;
Jefferson Caffery, of Louisiana, to be Am¬
bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
to Prance; and
Waldo E. Bailey, of Mississippi, to be a
Foreign Service officer of class 7, a secretary
in Diplomatic Service and also a consul.
By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on
Public Lands and Surveys:
Richard McElligott, of Oregon, to be reg¬
ister of the land office at Roseburg, Oreg.,
terminating recess appointment, vice George
Finley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there
be no further reports of committees, the
clerk will state the nominations on the
calendar.
OFFICE OF WAR MOBILIZATION AND
RECONVERSION
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Brig. Gen. Frank T. Hines, United
States Army, to be Retraining and Re¬
employment Administrator.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I ask
that the nomination of General Hines be
confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
THE JUDICIARY
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Charles H. Cashin, to be United
States attorney for the western district
of Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Harllee Branch, of Georgia, to be
a member for the tei'm of 6 years from
January 1, 1945.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of William H. Burke, Jr., of Nor¬
thampton, Mass., to be collector of cus¬
toms for customs collection district No. 4,
with headquarters at Boston, Mass.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I ask
that the nomination be confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
THE COAST GUARD
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the Coast Guard.
Mr. BARKLEY. I ask that the nomi¬
nations in the Coast Guard be confirmed
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the Coast Guard nominations
are confirmed en bloc.
THE NAVY
The legislative clerk read themomlna-
tion of Harry L. Merring, to be rear ad¬
miral in the Navy on the retired list, for
temporary service, to continue while
serving as Deputy Chief of Industrial Re¬
adjustment Branch of the Office of Pro¬
curement and Material.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I ask
that the nomination be confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
8455
THE MARINE CORPS
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the Marine Corps.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I ask
that the nominations in the Marine.
Corps be confirmed en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations are con¬
firmed en bloc.
That completes the calendar.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I ask
that the President be immediately noti¬
fied of all nominations this day con¬
firmed, and all previous confirmations of
nominations of which notice has not
been given to the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the President will be notified
forthwith.
RECESS TO FRIDAY
Mr. BARKLEY. 'As in legislative ses¬
sion, I move that the Senate take a recess
until 12 o’clock noon on Friday next.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 5
o’clock and 1 minute p. m.) the Senate
took a recess until Friday, November 24,
1944, at 12 o’clock meridian.
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate November 22 (legislative day of
November 21), 1944:
In the Marine Corps
Brig. Gen. Earl C. Long to lie a major gen¬
eral in the Marine Corps, for temporary serv¬
ice, from the 7th day of January 1944.
Brig. Gen. Pedro del Valle to be a major
general in the Marine Corps, for temporary
service, from the 10th day of January 1944.
Brig. Gen. Louis E. Woods to be a major
general in the Marine Corps, for temporary
service, from the 10th day of September 1944.
Brig. Gen. Field Harris to be a major gen¬
eral in the Marine Corps, for temporary serv¬
ice, from the 10th day of September 1944.
Col. William T. Clement to be a brigadier
general in the Marine Corps, for temporary
service, from the 3d day of October 1942.
Col. Louis R, Jones to be a brigadier gen¬
eral In the Marine Corps, for temporary serv¬
ice, from the 4th day of October 1942.
Col. Joseph H. Fellows to be a brigadier
general in the Marine Corps, for temporary
service, from the 9th day of November 1944.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate November 22 (legislative day
of November 21), 1944:
Office of War Mobilization and
Reconversion
Brig. Gen. Frank T. Hines, United States
Army, to be Retraining and Reemployment
Administrator.
The Judiciary
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Charles H. Cashin, to be United States at¬
torney for the western district of Wisconsin.
Department of Coj.imerce
civil aeronalhics board
Harllee Branch, to be a member of the Civil
Aeronautics Board, for the term of 6 years
from January 1, 1945.
Collector of Customs
William H. Burke, Jr., to be collector of
customs for customs collection district No. 4,
with headquarters at Boston, Mass.
In the Navy
TEMPORARY SERVICE
Harry L. Merring to be a rear admiral in
the Navy, on the retired list, for temporary
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 22, 1944
8456
service, to continue while serving as deputy
chief of industrial readjustment branch of
the Office of Procurement and Material.
In the Marine Corps
APPOINTMENTS IN THE MARINE CORPS
To be first lieutenant, to rank from
September 1, 1939
William F. Hausman
To be second lieutenants, to rank from
indicated dates
Jack Cosley, from February 9, 1942.
John W. Beebe, from February 9, 1942.
Kenneth D. Frazier, from March 12, 1942.
Arvld W. Blackmun, from March 12, 1942.
Clayton M. Canfield, from March 14, 1942,
Howard E. Cook, from March 14, 1942.
Taylor R. Roberts, from March 17, 1942.
Robert D. Bachtel, from March 25, 1942.
Robert F. Conley, from April 3, 1942.
John P. Long, from May 1, 1942.
Edwin E. Shifflett, from May 22, 1942.
Harold A. Langstalf, Jr., from June 19, 1942.
Gerald R. Graff, from June 19, 1942.
Ingram R. Rader, from July 13, 1942.
William A. Eddy, Jr., from August 7, 1943.
Warren R. Loney, from February 4, 1944.
Fred J. Kendall, from February 4, 1944.
Robert W. Tosch, from February 4, 1944.
Richard F. DeLamar III from May 2, 1944.
Robert P. Barnett, from May 2, 1944.
James E. Wallace, from May 2, 1944.
William E. Mack, from May 2, 1944.
Alfred A. Mannino, from May 2. 1944.
Stanley G. Raytlnsky, Jr., from May 2, 1944.
Eugenous M. Hovatter, from July 26, 1944.
Howard F. Stevenson, from August 8, 1944.
John F. Graff, Jr., from August 8, 1944.
To be second lieutenants from August 8, 1944
Carl W. Hoffman
Leslie A. Gilson, Jr.
Joseph E. Fogg
Alfred A. Pruslck
Ben E. Baker
Wlllmar M. Bledsoe
Frederick E. Malcolm
In the Coast Guard
TEMPORARY SERVICE
Lyndon Spencer to be rear admiral while
serving as assistant chief operations officer
or in any other assignment for which the rank
of rear admiral is authorized, to rank from
October 1, 1944.
Robert Donohue to be rear admiral, to rank
from June 30, 1942, while serving as chief,
air sea rescue officer, or in any other assign¬
ment for which the rank of rear admiral is
authorized.
Joseph F. Farley to be rear admiral to rank
from November 1, 1943, while serving as chief
personnel officer or in any other assignment
for which the rank of rear admiral is author¬
ized.
To be commodores while serving under the
conditions specified, to rank from October
1, 1944
Frederick P. Dillon, while serving as Chief,
Aids to Navigation Division, or in any other
assignment for which the rank of commodore
is authorized.
LeRoy Reinberg, while serving as comman¬
dant, Coast Guard Yard, Curtis Bay, Md., or
In any other assignment for which the rank
of commodore is authorized.
Norman B. Hall, while serving as vice chair¬
man, Merchant Marine Council, or in any
other assignment for which the rank of com¬
modore is authorized.
Raymond T. McElligott, while serving as
assistant chief personnel officer, or in any
other assignment for which the rank of com¬
modore is authorized.
William J. Keester, while serving as inspec¬
tor in chief, or in any other assignment for
which the rank of commodore is authorized.
Halert C. Shepheard, while serving as Chief,
Merchant Marine Inspection Division, or in
any other assignment for which the rank of
commodore is authorized.
OFFICE OF BUDGET AUD FINANCE
Legislative Reports and Service Section
7 2th- 2nd, No. l62
DIGEST OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS OF IlDDEREST TO THE DEPARDaENT OF AGRICULTURE
(Issued Novemher 25, 1944, for actions of Friday, November 24. iq44L
' ''■**
(For staff of the Department only)
CONTENTS*
Adjournment .
.3,10
Missouri Valley Authori-
Road authorizations. .1, 20
Coiigi^essional organ-
ty - * . .
. 13
Rural electrification. . .4
ization .
.. .16
Per so nnel .
...2,15
11
Dairy industry. . . . . .
. . .14
Post-war planning .
Sub sidies . . l4
Flood conti*ul. . . 4,6,
12,13
17. 18
Transportatiopi/. . 3,13
Foreign trade .
...19
Price ceilings .
. 14
Water utilizAticn . 4
Forestry . . . . . .
Reclamation . . .
...6.13
6,9,13
TjAnrl-l ftARp.. .
... .5
R.F.C .
... ■
HOUSE'
1. ■ ROAD- AUTHORIZA-TION BILL. . Begkh,, debate on thijf bill, H. R. 4915 (pu* 8507-35)*
Rep. Robinson, Utah, discussed the provi^^ns of the bill, inserted a table
showing "state estimates of ability, to ja^ch apportionment under H. R. 4915»”
discussed with several members the ■^’ogj^rtionment of amounts for f arm- to-market
and secondary and feeder roads, ant^^i'^s.erted several committee-approved amend¬
ments which proposed ■ increases farm-tp- market authorizations (pp. 8507-17)*
Rep. Smith, Ohio, inserted they^.erican A:dt(^mobile Association resolution
urging that the Federal-aid h-fghway policj^ De- determined by needs of national
significance, that FederaT^’^d .be on a 50^ bal^, that Federal-aid funds should
be charged against genergi^ Government revenues, ^nd that the traditional
formula for the appor'y^e^ent of Federal aid shoul4':be revised (pp. 852O-I).
Rep. Whittington, , spoke favoring this bill andh^iscussed the difference
in amounts receive^l^y the States under the old and neW^ formulae (pp. 8522-S).
Rep. Vursell, II^’ urged that greater provision be made fqr raral roads
(pp. S53O-I). /
2. PERSONNEL; >^^VSL. Expenditures in the Executive Departments Conimittee reported
withouy^endment H. R. .4547, to permit the compensation, on a mii'eage basis,
of curulian officers or employees for the use of privately-owned airplanes
whi^ traveling on official business (H. Rept. 1933) (p* 853^).
T^^JOURNED until Mon., Nov. 27 -
I SENATE .
FLOOD CONTROL. Continued debate on H. R. 44S5, the Whittington flood-control
I bill (pp. 3473-503).
% Rejected, 27-42, the committee ^amendment -providing for the disposition
of surplus electric energy by the Secretary of the Interior, as modified by
I amendments by Sen. Bailey, N. C. , to provide for the complete coordination j
of such power with other power developments within a given area; by Sen. ,
Bankhead, Ala. , to provide that nothing in the amendment shall prohibit the ^
' building of transmission lines by the Federal Government to supply rural |
electric association^jprganized for the purpose of supplying electric energy ^
to rural districts ;/_Sen. Maloney, Conn., to provide that the Secretary of
- 2 -
$
i?
I
*<
^ Interior may construct transmission lines for the purpose of selling power
I at wholesale unless 90 percent of the firm power produced at such projects
f shall he purchased upon completion of construction of such projects (pji 84Sl-
90). '
Rejected the committee amendment, providing for the disposition of sur¬
plus electric energy hy the Secretary of the Interior, as modified hy Sen.
McClellan’s (Ark.) amendment to stipulate that, in connection with any sale,
I any and all savings realized hy the purchasers shall he -passed -oh, under
1 Federal regulation where no State regulation exists, to the consuming public
(pu. 8490-2). , . . 7 • ■ ' ' .
Sen. Millikin, Colo., .for himself and Sen. Johns-on, Co-l-o-. , submitted an
amendment which would include in the Arkansas River Basin pro-ject the storage
in reservoirs upstream from, Trinidad, if the Secretary of War and the Chief
of Engineers find such actio.n .advisable for flood co-ntroi and- -iri’ e-rder to
make more water available .for .agricultural and indus-trial u-s-es- without impair¬
ment of flood control for Trinidad (pp. 8502-3). This amendment was carried
he hoped that
During the debate Sen. Barkley stated tha.-;^no dilficulty will be en¬
countered in completing action of this bill and also the river-and-harbor bill
H. R. 3961 > by the end of next week (p. 8493) •
Sens. Butler, Rebr .,■ Murray, Mont., and Clark, Mo., discussed the urovi-
sion in this bill which Sen. Murray claimed would "foreclose the possibility
of a Missouri Valley Authority." Sen. Clark stated that this "v;ould certainly
not interfere with any future legislation which Congress might see fit to
enact." (p. 8495)*
Sens. Overton, La., Aiken, Vt., and Murray, Mont., and others discussed
the St. Lawrence V^terway provision (pp. 8497”502).
5. LEND-LEASE. Both Houses received from the President theljth .report on lend- ^
lease operations, in v/hich he stated that lend-lease "should end with the war"\
but that the united nations "partnership" must continue and grow stronger to
assure an enduring peace. To Senate For.eign Relations Commit tee . and .House
Foreign Affairs Committee. (pu. 8472-3, 85O6-7.)
6. RECLAMATION. Received from the Secretary of the Interior a. Letter stating
that certain proposals in connection with the flOod-control and river s-harbors
bills "would breach the long-established policies of the. Congres.-s under which
reclamation development in the West has., proceeded. " To Irrigation and" Reclama¬
tion Committee, (p. 8475*)
7. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. Both Rouses ‘received RFC’s August-1944
report. To Banking and Currency Committees. ' (pp. 8475i S536.)
8. ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY, Sen. Aiken, Vt . , spoke in favor of this project
(pp. 8476-7).
9. WATER UTIL I OR* Sen. Conhally, Tex., inserted the protocol supplementary
to the tr.eh,ty between the U. S. and Mexico regarding utilization of waters of
the Cpl^orado and Tijuana Rivers (pp. 8477~S).
10. A0TOURNED until Mon. , Nov. 27 (p. 8503). '* •
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
m THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
November 24 (legislative day, No\t:mber 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENTS
Intended to be proposed by Mr. O’Mahoney (for himself, Mr.
Austin, Mr. Busheield, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Clark of
Idaho, Mr. Downey, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hayden, Mr. John¬
son of Colorado, Mr. Danger, Mr. MoCarran, Mr. Mc¬
Farland, Mr. Millikin, Mr. Murdock, Mr. Murray,
Mr. Nye, Mr. Bobertson, Mr. Scrugiiam, Mr. Thomas
of Utah, Mr. Thomas of Idaho, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr.
Wilson) to the bill (H. B. 4485) authorizing the construc¬
tion of certain pubhc works on rivers and harbors for flood
control, and for other purposes, viz: At the proper place in
the bill insert the following:
1 “In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
2 the rivers of the Nation through the construction of works
3 of improvement, for navigation or flood control, it is hereby
4 declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the
11-2A44 - E
9
1 interests and rights of the States in determining the develop-
2 ment of the watersheds within their borders and likewise
3 their interests and rights in water utilization and control, as
4 herein authorized to preserve and protect to the fullest possible
5 extent established and potential uses, for all purposes, of the
6 waters of the Nation’s rivers; to facilitate the consideration
'i' of projects on a basis of comprehensive and coordinated
8 development; and to limit the authorization and construction
9 of navigation works to those in which a substantial benefit to
10 navigation will be reahzed therefrom and which can be
11 operated consistently with appropriate and economic use of
12 the waters of such rivers by other users.
18 “In conformity with this policy:
14 Plans, proposals, or reports of the Chief of Engi-
15 neers. War Department, for any works of improvement for
16 navigation or flood control not heretofore or herein author-
17 ized, shall he submitted to the Congress only upon compliance
18 with the provisions of this paragraph (a) . Investigations
19 which form the basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports
20 shall be conducted in such a manner as to give to the affected
21 State or States, during the course of the investigations, in-
22 formation developed by the investigations and also oppor-
23 tunity for consultation regarding plans and proposals, and,
24 to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers,
25 opportunity to cooperate in the investigations. If such
3
1 investigations in whole or part are concerned with the use
2 or control of waters arising west of the ninety-seventh merid-
3 ian, the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Secretary of
4 the Interior, during the course of the investigations, informa-
5 tion developed by the investigations and also opportunity for
6 consultation regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent
7 deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity
8 to cooperate in the investigations. The relations of the
9 Chief of Engineers with any State under this paragraph (a)
10 shall be with the Governor of the State or such official or
11 agency of the State as the Governor may designate. The
12 term ‘affected State or States’ shall include those in which
13 the works or any part thereof are proposed to be located;
14 those which in whole or part are both within the drainage
15 basin involved and situated in a State lying wholly or in
16 part west of the ninety-eighth meridian; and such of those
17 which are east of the ninety-eighth meridian as, in the
18 judgment of the Chief of Engineers, will be substantially
19 affected. Such plans, proposals, or reports and related in-
20 vestigations shall he made to the end, among other things,
21 of facilitating the coordination of plans for the construction
22 and operation of the proposed works with other plans involv-
23 ing the waters which would he used or controlled by such
24 proposed works. Each report submitting any such plans
25 or proposals to the Congress shall set out therein, among
4
1 other things, the relationship between the plans for con-
2 stmction and operation of the proposed works and the plans,
3 if any, submitted by the affected States and by the Secretary
4 of the Interior. The Chief of Engineers shall transmit a
5 copy of his proposed report to each affected State, and, in
6 case the plans or proposals covered by the report are con-
" cemed with the use or control of waters which rise in whole
8 or in part west of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secre-
9 tary of the Interior. Within ninety days from the date of
10 receipt of said proposed report, the written views and recom-
11 mendations of each affected State and of the Secretary of the
12 Interior may he submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The
13 Secretary of War shall transmit to the Congress, with such
14 comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate,
15 the proposed report together with the submitted views and
16 recommendations of affected States and of the Secretary
17 of the Interior. The Secretary of War may prepare and
18 make said transmittal any time following said ninety-day
19 period. The letter of transmittal and its attachments shah be
10 printed as a House or Senate document.
21 (b) The authorizations for projects described as follows
22 in this Act shall be subject to the provisions of this para-
23 graph (b) :
24 “Youghiogheny Eiver Basin.
25 “Eaystown Reservoir on the J uniata River.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
^‘Connecticut Eiver Basin.
“Section 3 of the Act approved August 18, 1941 (55
Stat. 638), paragraph entitled ‘Connecticut Eiver Basin’, is
amended by striking out the words ‘with such further modi-
»
fications as may be found justifiable in the discretion of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers’.
“If a written objection to the authorization of any of the
above-described projects is filed with the Secretary of War
within ninety days after the date of such authorization or
the date of this Act, whichever may be later, by the Gov¬
ernor of any affected State (as defined in paragraph (a,)
of this section), then the Chief of Engineers (1) shall give
0
opportunity to be heard to representatives accredited by the
Governor of each affected State; (2) shall undertake such
investigations or reinvestigations as he deems appropriate in
the circumstances ; and ( 3 ) shall prepare a review report' and
recommendations in the light of said objections and hearings
and shall transmit a copy thereof to each affected State. The*'
review report shall be of such scope as the Chief of Engineers
deems appropriate in the circumstances. Thereupon, within
ninety days from the date of receipt of said review report, the
written views and recommendations of each such State may
be submitted to the .Chief of Engineers. The Secretary of
War shall transmit to the Congress, with such comments and
A.H.E.4485 - 2 -
6
1 recommendations as he deems appropriate, the review report,
t
2 together with the submitted views and recommendations of
3 such States. The Secretary of War may prepare and make
4 said transmittal any time following said ninety-day period.
5 The letter of transmittal and its attachments shah he printed
6 as a House or Senate document. The authorization in ques-
7 tion, with such modifications of the plans for works as may
8 have been recommended in the review report of the Chief
T
9 of Engineers, shall he effective on the date when said docu-
ment is printed, if the Secretary of War concurs in said
11 review report and if there is no objection thereto set forth
12 in a submission of views and recommendations made by a
18 State in accordance with the above procedure. The author-
14 ization, if objections thereto are set forth in such a submission,
15 shall not be effective unless and until otherwise provided by
16 subsequent Act. of Congress.
17 ‘‘Any authorization hereafter made based on a plan,
18 proposal, or report which has been made to the Congress
19 prior to the date of this Act hut which has not been hereto-
20 fore or herein authorized, shall likewise he subject to the
21 provisions of this paragraph (b).
22 ‘^(c) The use for navigation, in connection with
23 the operation and maintenance of such works herein
24 authorized for construction, of waters arising in States lying
25 wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be
7
■\ )
1 only such use as does not conflict with any beneficial con-
2 sumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or
3 partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters for
4 domestic, municipal, stock water, imgation, mining, or in-
5 dustrial purposes.
6 “ The Secretary of the Interior, in making investi-
7 gations of and reports on works for irrigation and purposes
8 incidental thereto shall, in relation to an affected State or
9 States (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) , and to
10 the Secretaiy of War, be subject to the same provisions re-
11 garding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports as pre-
12 scribed in paragraph (a) of this section for the Chief of
•
18 Engineers and the Secretary of War. In the event a sub-
14 mission of views and recommendations, made bv an affected
15 State or by the Secretary of War pursuant to said provisions,
16 sets forth objections to the plans or proposals covered by the
17 report of the Secretary of the Interior, on grounds not in-
18 consistent with paragraph (c) of this section, the proposed
19 works shall not be deemed authorized except upon approval
20 by an Act of Congress; and subsection 9 (a) of the Eecla-
21 mation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) and subsection
22 3 (a) of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418), as
23 amended, are hereby amended accordingly.”
21 On page 5, strike out lines 8 to 16, inclusive, and
25 insert the following : '
8
I
\
1 ' “Sec. 6. That the Secretary of War is authorized to
2 contract for water storage for any beneficial uses or purposes
3 with States, legal subdivisions thereof. State and interstate
4 agencies, municipahties, pubfic, quasi public, or private
5 corporations, firms, associations, or individuals on such
6 terms and conditions as he may deem reasonable, when
7 storage capacity for any such uses or purposes is or may
8 be made available at any reservoir now or hereafter con-
- structed by the War Department: Provided, That the right
10 to the use of water for such purposes shall have been estab-
11 lished by proceedings in conformity with State laws: And
12 provided further, That no such water storage shah, be in
18 conflict with, or adversely affect, then existing lawful uses
14 of water. All moneys received from such contracts shall
15 be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscel-
10 laneous receipts.”
17 On page 5, strike out line 25 and lines 1 to 11,
18 inclusive, on page 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following :
10 ^‘Seg. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary of War
' 20 determines, upon recommendation by the Secretary of the
21 Interior, that in connection with any dam and reservoir
22 project constructed or to be constmcted by the Secretary
28 of War additional works for the diversion and distribution
24 of water may he utilized for irrigation, the Secretary of the
25 Interior is authorized to make a report and findings on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
construction of such additional works for the diversion and
distribution of water as he may deem necessary for such
purposes. Such report and findings shall be made in ac¬
cordance with and subject to the provisions of the Federal
reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388),
and Acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto) .
Within the limits of the water users’ repayment ability,
such report Vay be predicated on the allocation to irriga¬
tion of an appropriate portion of the cost of structures and
facilities used for irrigation. After specific authorization of
the Congress by an authorization act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall construct, operate, and maintain such additional
works in accordance with said Federal reclamation laws and
shall be authorized to deliver to such lands such portion of
the water made available by said dam and reseiwoir project
as may he set forth in said report and findings of the Secre¬
tary of the Interior or as may be otherwise provided by law.
The provisions of this section shall not prejudice lawful uses
then existing nor water rights or priorities established under
applicable State laws, and shall not apply to any dam or ^
reservoir heretofore or hereafter constructed which supple¬
ments any existing locally operated irrigation system or
other locally operated water facilities, nor shall this section
nor the provisions of section 6 hereof apply to an}^ dam
or reservoir heretofore constructed in whole or in part by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
the Army engineers, which provides conservation storage
of water for irrigation purposes.”
On page 20, strike out lines 5 to 25, inclusive, and on
page 21 strike out lines 1 and 2.
On page 7, between lines 11 and 12, insert the follow¬
ing new section:
‘‘Sec. 9. (a) The general coinj^rehensive plans set forth
in House Document 475 and Senate Document 191, seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, as revised and coordinated
by Senate Document 247, seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, are hereby approved and the initial stages recom¬
mended are hereby authorized and shall be prosecuted by
the War Department and the Department of the Interior
as speedily as may be consistent with budgetary require¬
ments.
“(b) The general comprehensive plan for flood control
and other purposes in the Missouri Elver Basin approved by
the Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by subsequent Acts,
is hereby expanded to include the works referred to in para¬
graph (a) to be undertaken b}" the War Department; and
said expanded plan shall be prosecuted under the direction
of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of
Engineers.
“(c) Subject to the basin- wide findings and recom¬
mendations regarding the benefits, the allocations of costs and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
the repayments by water users, made in said House and
Senate documents, the reclamation and power developments
to be undertaken by the Secretary of the Interior under said
plans, and the disposition of power generated at dams to be
undertaken by the Corps of Engineers under said plans, shall
be governed by the Federal Eeclamation Laws (Act of June
17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or
supplementary thereto) , except that irrigation of Indian trust
and tribal lands, and repayment therefor, shall he in accord¬
ance with the laws relating to Indian lands.
‘‘(d) In addition to previous authoiizations there is
hereby authorized' to be appropriated the sum of $200,-
000,000 for the partial accomplishment of the w^orks to be
undertaken under said expanded plans by the Corps of
Engineers.
“(e) The sum of $200,000,000 is hereby authorized to
be appropriated for the partial accomplishment of the works
to be undertaken under said plans by the Secretary of the
Interior.”
On page 7, line 12, strike out “7” and insert “10”.
c.
o
o
Cij
o
<
w
H
CO
o
CD
CTQ
S'
fe¬
et)
p
S'
2
£
o
<
H
fe¬
et)
w
m
fe
►d
•-s
to
3 r
(D
H>
O
!=t
C
:• o
o
o ^
e^
03 t--
o
s
S a
r^ fe
o
g ffi g
'-S >
er
02 3
g.
a
S P! M
o> 2 >
2
5*
' ’S
S'
O
w
^ ?N
{3,
H>
o
S* if-
f* S
00
fd W
o g
W t?
>- •
g
• o'
(n
Ol
d
^ fe
02 o
<v
fe-
5- £
S 2
N
w i,w —
O I-S erq
M 02
fti ct
02 fe
o o
f=i= o
R1 Q 5!
r a 2
i ° I
o p 1^
^ "L,
e^
g
i-s
rs
p g
d r*
K
t-i >
p w
o
2
& K
P
fe-
O
2- W
g
§
H
td O
> a
2 -
O
t?? &
fe ^
n
2
0
w g
d r=
O !:?
K g
1^ ^
PI
z
H
e/)
S|
^3
§ ^
U2
U1
fe
4^
4^
00
cn
I
78th CONGEESS
2d Session
H. R, 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 24 (legislative day, November 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Burton to the bill (H. B.
4485 ) authorizing the construction of certain pubhc works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
viz: On page 38, between lines 11 and 12, insert the follow¬
ing:
1 ’ Leatherwood Creek, Ohio, with particular reference to
2 flood control and water supply for Cambridge, Ohio.
11-24-44 - B
»/v
.1
(
O
O
(t>
a
o
g
w
H
5d
CD fD
o 'S.
cr
CP
P
cr
cF :<
p ^
a I
CT> Sd
to
D :r
rt"
rp i-j
CO
o
Cfi
P
CT*
O
*-s
CP w
Cfi
p
• HH
1—'
CT^ CP
M •
o
P
^ P-i
p
CP
o
Kt
W
C>
• o
CP
>-s
r+*
W cr
• CD
P
)— 1»
P
►4^ it3
QO 3
c
o
2 re
o'
g-
O t<J
I-S
o
pr
b; g
uo s
^ "m
re
p" d
hw
CD g
O o
CP
9,
*-i
p
03
03 r-K
O
P
P
O
PLi
1 re
M
Z
D
PI
Z
H
-5
00
tom
mQ
m ^
s o
§ w
^ a
U1
ID.
PO
00
Ul
1
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Joint legislative action of the legislatures in
Canada and the United States.
Any attempt made by opponents of the
project to raise the issue of treaty versus
agreement is an obstructionist tactic to frus¬
trate the will of the people and to break the
pledges of both major parties and their
leaders for 30 years. At a time when both
parties are dedicated to creating unity in the
world for peace and prosperity, a recalcitrant
minority representing sectional or special
interests must not be allowed to divide our
country and to destroy the constructive pro¬
gram of both parties for creative employment
for war workers and returning veterans.
The National St. Lawrence Association,
therefore, commends the announced inten¬
tion of Senator George D. Aiken to obtain
early approval of the St. Lawrence project
on the floor of the Senate, and appreciates
the support of President Roosevelt and Ma¬
jority Leader Barkley for Senator Aiken’s
program of action.
REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on
Public Lands and Surveys:
S. 1581. A bill to authorize the Secretary
of War to acquire lands and provide facili¬
ties to replace Indian fishing grounds sub¬
merged or destroyed as a result of the con¬
struction of the Bonneville Dam; without
amendment (Rept. No. 1189);
H. R. 1654. A bill to authorize the acquisi¬
tion, rehabilitation, and operation of the
facilities for the public in the Olympic Na¬
tional Park, in the State of Washington, and
for other purposes; without amendment
(Rept. No. 1190); and
H. R. 5232. A bill to transfer jurisdiction
over the Chattanooga National Cemetery,
Chattanooga, Term., from the Department of
the Interior to the War Department, and for
other purposes; without amendment (Rept.
No. 1191).
By Mr. GURNEY, from the Committee on
Public Lands and Surveys;
S. 2141. A bUl to provide for the acceptance
and protection by the United States of prop¬
erty within the authorized boundaries of the
Everglades National Park project, Florida,
pending the establishment of the park, and
for other purposes; without amendment
(Rept. No. 1192).
By Mr. ELLENDER, from the Committee
on Claims:
H. R. 4366. A bill for the relief of Alex
Wylie and the estate of James Evans; with
an amendment (Rept. No. 1193).
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
INTRODUCED
Bills and joint resolutions were intro¬
duced, read the first time, and, by unani¬
mous consent, the second time, and re¬
ferred as follows;
By Mr. ELLENDER:
S. 2198. A bill for the relief of the New
England Telephone & Telegraph Co.; to the
Committee on Claims.
By Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts;
S. 2199. A bill to provide reimbursement
for personal property lost, damaged, or de¬
stroyed, as the result of an explosion at the
Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va., on Septem¬
ber 17, 1943; to the Committee on Naval
Affairs.
(Mr. BUSHFIELD introduced S. J. Res.
157, which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary, and appears under a sepa¬
rate heading.)
By Mr. CONNALLY;
S. J. Res. 158. Joint resolution recognizing
the outstanding service rendered to the
United Nations by Field Marshal Sir John
Dill; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT BY POPULAR VOTE — PRO¬
POSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. BUSHFIELD. I ask unanimous
consent to introduce for appropriate ref¬
erence a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The purpose of the joint
resolution is to abolish the electoral col¬
lege and to make the selection of Presi¬
dent and Vice President by popular vote.
There being no objection, the joint
resolution (S. J. Res. 157) proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States relating to the election
of the President and the Vice President,
was received, read twice by its title and
referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
HOUSE BILL REFERREb
The bill (H. R. 4911) to amend the
Federal Crop Insurance Act, was read
twice by its title and referred to the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS—
AMENDMENT
MR. TYDINGS submitted an amend¬
ment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill (H. R. 3691) authorizing the con¬
struction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and har¬
bors, and for other purposes, which was
ordered to lie on the table and to be
printed.
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS— AMEND¬
MENTS
Mr. O’MAHONEY (for himself, Mr.
Austin, Mr. Bushfield, Mr. Chavez, Mr,
Clark of Idaho, Mr. Downey, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Hayden, Mr. Johnson of Colorado,
Mr. Lancer, Mr. McCarran, Mr. McFar-
;.AND, Mr. Millikin, Mr. Murdock, Mr.
Murray, Mr. Nye, Mr. Robertson, Mr.
ScRUGHAM, Mr. Thomas of Utah, Mr.
Thomas of Idaho, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr.
Wilson) submitted amendments intend¬
ed to be proposed by them, jointly, to the
bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes, which were ordered
to lie on the table and to be printed.
Mr. BURTON submitted an amend¬
ment intended to be proposed by him to
House bill 4485, supra, which was ordered
to lie on the table and to be printed.
Mr. ROBERTSON (for Mr. Buck) sub¬
mitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by Mr. Buck to House bill 4485,
supra, which was ordered to lie on the
table and to be printed.'
Mr. MIT, LIKIN (for himself and Mr.
Johnson of Colorado) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
them jointly to House bill 4485, supra,
which was ordered to lie on the table and
to be printed.
INVESTIGATION OP INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS BY 'WIRE AND
RADIO— INCREASE IN LIMIT OF EX¬
PENDITURES
Mr. McFarland (for himself, Mr.
Wheeler, and Mr. White) submitted the
following resolution (S. Res. 340), which
was referred to the Committee to Audit
and Control the Contingent Expenses of
the Senate:
8477
Resolved, That the limit of expenditures
of the Committee on Interstate Commerce
under Senate Resolution 268, Seventy-eighth
Congress, agreed to March 29, 1944 (relating
to an investigation of international commu¬
nications by wire and radio). Is hereby In¬
creased by $10,000.
REVIEW OP REPORTS ON GULP INTRA¬
COASTAL WATERWAY (S. DOC. NO. 248)
Mr. CONNALLY presented a letter
from the Secretary of War, transmitting
a report dated October 7, 1944, from the
Chief of Engineers, United States Army, -
on a review of reports on the Gulf Intra¬
coastal Waterway, with a view to deter¬
mining if it is advisable to modify the
existing project in any way, particularly
with reference to the construction of a
side channel and turning basin in Red
Fish Bay, which, with the accompanying
report, was referred to the Committee
on Commerce and ordered to be printed
with an illustration.
UTILIZATION OP WATERS OP THE COLO¬
RADO AND TIJUANA RIVERS AND OF
THE RIO GRANDE— PROTOCOL
As in executive session,
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, the
President of the United States has sent
to the Senate a protocol supplementary
to the treaty between the United States
and Mexico with reference to the waters
of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and
the Rio Grande. I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the protocol be referred to the
Committee on Foreign Relations, and
that the ban of secrecy be removed there¬
from.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, as in executive session, the re¬
quest of the Senator from Texas is
granted, and the protocol will be pub¬
lished in the Record.
The protocol (Executive H, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session) is as
follows:
To the Senate of the United States:
With a view to receiving the advice and
consent of the Senate to ratification, I
transmit herewith a protocol, signed in
Washington on November 14, 1944, sup¬
plementary to the treaty between the
United States of America and the United
Mexican States relating to the utilization
of the waters of the Colorado and Ti¬
juana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (Rio
Bravo) which was signed in Washington
on February 3, 1944.
I also transmit for the information of
the Senate a report on the protocol made
to me by the Acting Secretary of State.
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The White House, November 24, 1944.
[Enclosures; 1. Report of the Acting
Secretary of State.
2. Protocol, signed November 14, 1944,
supplementary to treaty between United
States and Mexico signed February 3,
1944.1
Department op State,
Washington, November 22, 1944.
The President,
The White House.
Mr. President: The undersigned, the Act¬
ing Secretary of State, has the honor to lay
before the President, with a view to its trans¬
mission to the Senate to receive the advice
and consent of that body to ratification, if
his judgment approve thereof, a protocol,
signed, in Washington on November 14, 1944,
8478
November 24
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
supplementary to the treaty between the
United States of America and the United
Mexican States relating to the utilization of
the waters of the Colorado and Tijuana
Rivers and of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo),
which was signed in Washington on Feb-
ruai-y 3, 1944.
The treaty of February 3, 1944, was trans¬
mitted to the Senate by the President with
his message of February 15, 1944, with a view
to receiving the advice and consent of the
Senate to ratification thereof. ■> The texts of
the treaty and of the President’s message, to¬
gether with the text of the report of the Sec¬
retary of State dated February 9, 1944, have
been printed in Senate Executive A, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session. The treaty
was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate on February 15, 1944.
The purpose of the protocol is to clarify
the meaning and application of those provi¬
sions of the treaty which relate to the func¬
tions and jurisdiction of the respective sec¬
tions of the International Boundary and
Water Commission in connection with the
construction or use of works for storage or
conveyance of water, flood control, stream
gaging, or for any other purpose.
By its own terms the protocol is to be re¬
garded as an integral part of the treaty cf
February 3, 1944, and shall be effective be¬
ginning with the day of the entry into force
of the treaty, continuing effective so long as
the treaty remains in force. Accordingly,
after such time as the Senate may have given
its advice and consent to the ratification of
the treaty and protocol, the protocol should
be ratified together with the treaty. It is
provided in the protocol, as in the treaty, that
the ratifications shall be exchanged in Wash¬
ington.
Respectfully submitted.
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.,
Acting Secretary of State.
[Enclosure: Protocol, signed November 14,
1944, supplementary to treaty between United
States and Mexico relating to waters of the
Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio
Grande signed February 3, 1944.]
PROTOCOL
The Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the United
Mexican States agree and understand that:
Wherever, by virtue of the provisions of the
Treaty between the United States of America
and the United Mexican States, signed in
Washington on February 3, 1944, relating to
the utilization of the waters of the Colorado
and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande
from Fort Quitman, Texas, to the Gulf of
Mexico, specific functions are Imposed on, or
exclusive jurisdiction is vested in, either of
the Sections of the International Boundary
and Water Commission, which involve the
construction or use of works for storage or
conveyance of water, flood control, stream
gaging, or for any other purpose, which are
situated wholly within the territory of the
country of that Section, and which are to be
tjsed only partly for the performance of
treaty provisions, such jurisdiction shall be
exercised, and such functions. Including the
construction, operation, and maintenance of
the said works, shall be performed and car¬
ried out by the Federal agencies of that
country which now or hereafter may be au¬
thorized by domestic law to construct, or
to operate and maintain, such works. Such
functions or jurisdictions shall be exercised
In conformity with the provisions of the
Treaty and in cooperation with the respec¬
tive Section of the Commission, to the end
that all international obligations and func¬
tions may be coordinated and fulfilled.
The works to be constructed or used on or
along the boundary, and those to be con¬
structed or used exclusively for the discharge
of treaty stipulations, shall be under the
J’orisdlctlon of the Commission or of the re¬
spective Section, in accordance with the pro¬
visions of the Treaty. In carrying out the
construction of such works the Sections of
the Commission may utilize tlje services of
public or private organizations in accordance
with the laws of their respective countries.
This Protocol, which shall be regarded as
an integral part of the aforementioned Treaty
signed in Washington on February 3, 1944,
shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof
shall be exchanged in Washington. This
Protocol shall be effective beginning with the
day of the entry into force of the Treaty and
shall continue effective so long as the Treaty
remains in force.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipo¬
tentiaries have signed this Protocol and have
hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate, in the English and
Spanish languages, in Washington, this four¬
teenth day of November, 1944.
For the Government of the United States
of America:
[SEAL] E. R. STETTINrtJS, Jr.,
Acting Secretary of State
of the United States of America.
For the Government of the United Mexi¬
can States.
[SEAL] F. Castillo Najera,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni¬
potentiary of the United Mexican
States in Washington.
C. I. O. CONVENTION ADDRESS BY THE
VICE PRESIDENT
[Mr. LUCAS asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record the address de¬
livered by the Vice President at the annual
convention of the C. I. O. in Chicago, Ill., on
November 21, 1944, which appears in the
Appendix.]
REORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS — AD¬
DRESS BY SENATOR DAVIS BEFORE
PITTSBURGH LEAGUE OP WOMEN
VOTERS
[Mr. DAVIS asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an address en¬
titled “Reorganization of Congress,” deliv¬
ered by him before the League of Women
Voters at Pittsburgh, Pa., on October 6, 1944,
which appears in the Appendix.]
TRIBUTE TO THE LATE SENATOR ELLISON
D. SMITH
[Mr. MAYBANK asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Record an editorial
tribute to the late Senator Ellison D. Smith,
of South Carolina, published in the State,
of Columbia, S. C., of November 18, 1944,
which appears in the Appendix.]
EDITORIAL TRIBUTES TO JAMES A.
FARLEY
[Mr. GERRY asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an editorial en¬
titled “ ‘Jim’ Farley, Business Man,” pub¬
lished in the Tucson Daily Citizen for June
12, 1944, and an editorial entitled “Jim Far¬
ley’s Americanism,” published in the Sa¬
vannah News for July 24, 1944, which appear
in the Appendix.] '
TRIBUTE TO JOSEPHUS DANIELS BY
RALPH MCGILL
[Mr. HILL asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an article by
Ralph McGill, entitled “Greatest Southern¬
er?” paying tribute to Josephus Daniels,
which appears in the Appendix.]
WELCOME TO THE PRESIDENT ON HIS
RETURN TO WASHINGTON— ARTICLE
BY JAMES E. CHINN
[Mr. BILBO asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an article by
James E. Chinn, published in the Washing¬
ton Post, describing the welcome to the
President of the United States on his return
to Washington after the election, which ap¬
pears In the Appendix.]
MEDICAL PROBLEMS PRESEN’TED BY
AVIATION— PAPER BY DR. A. J. HERBOL-
SHEUMER
[Mr. BROOKS asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Record a paper on the
subject of the medical problems presented by
aviation, prepared by Dr. A. J. Herbolshelmer,
Assistant Chief of the Aviation Medical Divi¬
sion, Civil Aeronautics Administration, which
appears in the Appendix.]
DEVELOPMENT OP ST. LAWRENCE
RIVER— EDITORIAL COMMENT
[Mr. AIKEN asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record two editorials
and an article on the subject of the St. Law¬
rence waterway development, which appear
in the Appendix.]
THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY— EDITORIAL
FROM ST. CLOUD (MINN.) TIMES
[Mr. LANGER asked and obtained leave
to have printed in the Record an editorial
entitled “East Still Fights Seaway,” published
in the St. Cloud (Minn.) ’Times for November
1(7, 1944, which appears in the Appendix.]
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
is on agreeing to the committee amend¬
ment as modified, to insert section 5, on
which the yeas and nays have been or¬
dered. The clerk will read the agree¬
ment providing for limitation of debate.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Ordered by unanimous consent. That dur¬
ing the further consideration of the pending
amendment (Bailey amendment) no Senator
shall speak more than once or longer than
15 minutes on the amendment or any
amendment thereto.
Mr. PEPPER obtained the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PEPPER. If my time will not be¬
gin to run until I begin to speak, I shall
not be embarrassed by the limitation on
debate, but I think the limitation on de¬
bate really applies from the time the
Senator from Florida was recognized.
Otherwise I should be very glad to yield.
Mr. HATCH. I withdraw the request.
Mr. HHiL. Will the Senator yield so
that I may suggest the absence of a
quorum?
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, would
the time for a quorum call be taken out
of the time of the speaker?
The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum
call would come out of the Senator’s
time.
Mr. PEPPER. Very well, then I shall
proceed.
Mr. President, the amendment pend¬
ing before the Senate, known as the
Bailey amendment, in my opinion is a
very critical subject for the Senate to
discuss. The able chairman of the
Committee on Commerce, of which I
have had the honor to be a member since
I have been in the Senate, I think in¬
tends to reverse the public power policy
of the United States Government. 1
do not think the able Senator has been
reluctant to express that purpose. I am
sure that those who have made a study
of the amendment would agree that If
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
the amendment were adopted It would
have that effect.
I cannot but Imagine, as I contem¬
plate this amendment and the proposed
change in the power policy of the United
States, what sentiments would be ex¬
pressed in the Senate upon this amend¬
ment by that great soul now departed
from us who formerly was the symbol for
the protection of public power in Amer¬
ica, and the development of America’s
resources for public use, the lamented
Senator George W. Norris, of Nebraska.
I believe there is not a Senator on this
floor who does not believe that if Sena¬
tor George W. Norris were a Member
of this body the full weight of his elo¬
quence, and character, and ability, would
be thrown against the amendment, for
Senator George W. Norris would rec¬
ognize that the amendment proposed
practically would strangle the distribu¬
tion of public power at the very source
of it, the dam at which the power was
generated.
Mr. President, my State is so geo¬
graphically constituted that it has very
little opportunity for the development
of hydroelectric power. I wish the op¬
portunities were greater. But in the
last few months as on previous occasions,
it has been my privilege to visit the great
West, and particularly the areas around
about those mighty dams which have
been constructed in that section, the
Coulee Dam, the Bonneville Dam, the
Boulder Dam, and others in other parts
of our country. I know that if we per¬
mit the adoption of such an amendment
as is pending here today it will mean
the strangulation of the distribution of
that public power. It will retard and
prevent the development of those great
areas now in process of consummation,
agriculturally and industrially. It will
mean that where arid lands are today
there will continue to be arid lands, in¬
stead of fertile lands watered into great
fruitfulness by the magnificent sources
of power which have been created there
by public act. It will mean, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that those arid lands will continue
to be desert instead of the sites of great
cities, as will occur if we permit the pro¬
gression and the expansion of the public
power policies which have been followed
by the Government essentially since this
administration has been in power.
The amendment of the Commerce
Committee as it was originally reported
provided adequate safeguards for private
power companies. It provided that the
Secretary of the Interior should not have
authority to build distribution lines un¬
less it were necessary in the public in¬
terest to do so; that is to say, xmless it
were necessary to build those lines by the
Government in order to afford a proper
distribution of public power at reason¬
able rates.
Those two requirements are singularly
absent from the amendment of the able
chairman of the committee. He provides
that the Government cannot build an
extension line unless an offer is made by
a private company for the purchase of
the power, or unless private companies do
purchase the power. But, Mr. President,
it will be noted it does not provide the
safeguard the original amendment pro¬
vides, that the distribution of the power
must cover the area which properly
should be served, at fair and reasonable
rates. If a private company offered to
take all the power which the dam gen¬
erated and produced, or 90 percent of
it, and distribute it in a small segment
of the area which should be served by
the great dam, then the amendment of
the Senator from North Carolina would
be satisfied, and there would be no
power on the part of public authority
to serve the rural sections or the other
areas in that larger area which should
be the beneficiaries of this great source
of hydroelectric power.
Moreover, Mr. President, if the private
company said, “Yes, we will take 90 per¬
cent of the power generated, but we are
going to distribute at rates which we de¬
sire, or which we may be able to get by a
State regulatory agency,” that, too,
would satisfy the requirements of the
Bailey amendment, that would prohibit
any public authority from extending
lines out into the area which should be
served in order to get that publicly gen¬
erated power into the hands of users at
reasonable rates.
So, Mr. President, it might as well be
admitted that the purpose of the amend¬
ment is to protect the private power
companies and deprive the people of the
use of public power generated at public
expense and which ought to be for public
use. To my mind this proposal repre¬
sents a brazen effort to reverse the public
power policy of this Government, which
has been initiated and carried out under
this administration.
It seems to me, therefore, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that those who are aware of what
has been accomplished by this policy in
all sections of the country would join in
a concerted effort to defeat the amend¬
ment. It would seem to me especially
that Senators who come from the great
West, where dams have already been
built, would not permit the strangulation
of their cities and the fertile farms which
are to grow around the dams, by the
adoption of such a policy as is proposed
by the amendment. It would seem to me
that Senators who contemplate the im¬
provement and development of the great
rivers yet to be harnessed by other power
authorities — and, as I recall, the Presi¬
dent in one of his speeches during the
campaign enumerated six or eight great
river systems with respect to which au¬
thorities ought to be set up in order to
harness the power of those streams and
turn them into the service of the public —
would come to the side of those who are
opposed to this amendment.
It would further seem to me that all
those interested in the opening up of the
great mineral resources of the West and
other areas of the country where such
resources are to be found would not de¬
sire to deny to the public the power neces¬
sary to help them in the development
of those resources by changing the power
policy of the United States as is con¬
templated by the pending amendment.
Mr. President, a little while ago there
were some of us who thought that it
might be the policy of some, if they
came into power in the Government, to
do something like this, because a very
8479
able gentleman, seeking a high ofiSce,
speaking in Portland, Oreg., Governor
Bricker, of Ohio, announced that it was
his opinion — I suppose he meant to say
it was the policy of his party, or at least
his policy and that of his running mate —
that public power should not be publicly
distributed from the site of the dam.
There were a great many people in the
West to my personal knowledge who
thought they could appreciate the sig¬
nificance of that proposal and were
grievously concerned about it. I believe
that it has been the action of the people
of this country to discourage that kind
of proposed alteration in the power
policy of the country, and to preserve
the policy which we have so successfully
pursued in the years past. That policy
has not taken any advantage of any
private power company. It has not, as
is feared by the able chairman of the
committee, duplicated the line of a pri¬
vate company without satisfying the
constitutional requirement of paying the
company the fair value of the private
line of which it has been dispossessed.
There can be no reasonable fear based
on the experience of the past, therefore,
that any private company is about to be
ousted from the enjoyment of its proper
field. It would seem to me therefore
Mr. President, that it is not experience,
it is not proven results of the power policy
of this Government which dictate this
amendment, but it is the wish to serve
the private instead of the public interest;
the wish to see these great resources en¬
joyed for private profit rather than for
public use, which actuates those who be¬
lieve in such amendment as is proposed
here today.
I hope therefore that the people of the
West will not be disappointed, I hope
that those living^tn the vicinity of these
great rivers yet to be harnessed will not
be disappointed by action taken in the
Senate today. I hope other sections of
the country, including my own South,
which are in process of havifig their own
resources tapped and their own rivers
harnessed, may not be disappointed by
the action which the Senate will take
today. It is my belief therefore that
the amendment is not in the public in¬
terest and should be defeated.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
is on agreeing to the committee amend¬
ment, as modified.
Mr. HILL. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
Aiken
Cordon
Kilgore
Aiostlu
Davis
La Follette
Bailey
"lowney
Danger
Ball
Ellender
Lucas
Benkhead
Ferguson
McClellan
Barkley
George
McFarland
Bilbo
Gerry
McKeilar
Brooks
Gillette
Maloney
Burton
Green
Maybank
Bushfield
Guffey
Mead
Butler
Gurney
Milllkln
Byrd
Hatch
Murray
Capper
Hayden
Nye
Caraway
Hill
O’Dan.el
Chandler
Jenner
O’Mahoney
Clark, Mo.
Johnson, Calif.
Overton
ConnaUy
Johnson, Colo.
Pepper
No. 162 - 2
8480 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 24
Radcliffe
Revercomb
Reynolds
Robertson
Russell
Shlpstead
Taft
Thomas, Idaho Wheeler
Thomas. Okla. Wherry
Tunnell White
Tydings Wiley
Vandenberg Willis
Walsh Mass.
Weeks
Mr. HILL. I announce that the Sen¬
ator from Virginia [Mr. Glass] is absent
from the Senate because of illness.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Chavez] and the Senator from Tennessee
[Mr. STEWART] are absent because of
illness in their families.
The Senators from Nevada [Mr. Mc-
Carran and Mr. Scrugham] and the Sen¬
ator from Utah [Mr. Murdock] are de¬
tained on ofScial business for the Senate.
The Senator from Florida [Mr. An¬
drews], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.
Clark], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. Eastland], the Senator from Mis¬
souri I Mr. Truman], the Senator from
New York [Mr. Wagner], the Senator
from Utah I Mr. Thomas], the Senator
from Washington [Mr. Wallgren] and
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
Walsh] are necessarily absent.
Mr. WHERRY. The following Sen¬
ators are necessarily absent:
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. Bridges], the Senator from Dela¬
ware [Mr. Buck], the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. Hawkes], the Senator from
Oklahoma [Mr. Moore], the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. Reed], the Senator
from Iowa [Mr. Wilson], and the Sen¬
ator from Maine [Mr. Brewster],
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hol¬
man] is absent because of illness in his
family.
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Danaher] is absent on important public
business.
Mr. WHITE. I announce the neces¬
sary absence from the city of the Sen¬
ator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tobey].
The VICE PRESIDENT. Seventy
Senators have answered to their names.
A quorum is present.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, last
Wednesday I had occasion to discuss the
so-called Bailey amendment to the pend¬
ing flood-control bill. I stated then and
I repeat now, that I favor the develop¬
ment of power by the Government be¬
cause it is only by coordinated effort that
our immense water resources can be ade¬
quately developed. I favor this develop¬
ment provided that it is under the super¬
vision of the War Department, acting
through its efficient Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors. Because of the
close relationship that exists between the
protection of our country from floods,
the utilization of water for irrigation,
and the development of electric power
from our water resources, the Congress
should insist that the War Department
should be the instrumentality through
which this important work is to be car¬
ried out.
During the course of my remarks I
stated that the Bailey amendment was
somewhat in conflict with the historical
policy of Congress which had been es¬
tablished many years ago. I have a short
Synopsis of the various acts in which the
Congress declared its policy in respect
to the development of power. I ask
unanimous consent that the synopsis be
printed at this point in the Record, fol¬
lowing my remarks.
There being no objection, the synopsis
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
The proposed amendment Is In conflict
with the historical policy of Congress, orig¬
inally expressed in the Federal Water Power
Act in 1920 and subsequently embodied in
such legislation as the Boulder Dam Act,
T. V. A. Act, the Bonneville Act, and the
Fort Peck Act.
Thus section 7 (a) of the Federal Power
Act (formerly the Federal Water Power Act)
reads in part as follows:
“Section 7 (a). In Issuing preliminary per¬
mits hereunder or licenses where no pre¬
liminary permit has been issued and in
issuing licenses to new licensees under sec¬
tion 16 hereof the Commission shall give
preference to applications therefor by States
and municipalities provided the plans for the
same are deemed by the Commission equally
well adapted, or shall within a reasonable
time to be fixed by the Commission be made
equally wc'l adapted to conserve and utilize
In the public Interest the water resources of
the region; * *
By this legislation Congress established
the policy of giving public bodies preferen¬
tial access to the water power :.'esources over
which it had jurisdiction. This policy was
carried into section 5 (c) of the Boulder
Canyon Project Act of 1928.
The Tennessee Valley Authority Act em¬
bodies this policy in sections 10, 11, and 12,
which read in part as follows :
“Sec. 10. The board is hereby empowered
and authorized to sell the surplus power not
used in its operations, and for operation of
locks and other works • *- *, to States,
counties, municipalities, corporations, part¬
nerships, or individuals, according, to the
policies herein set forth; and to carry out
said authority the board is authorized to
enter into contracts for such sale for a term
not exceeding 20 years, and in the sale of
such current by the board it shall give pref¬
erence to States, counties, municipalities,
and cooperative organizations of citizens or
farmers, not organized or doing business for
profit, but primarily for the purpose of sup¬
plying electricity to its own citizens or mem¬
bers. * * »
“Sec. 11. It is hereby declared to be the
policy of the Government so far as practical
to distribute and sell the surplus power gen¬
erated at Muscle Shoals equitably among the
States, counties, and municipalities within
transmission distance • • *.
“Sec. 12. In order to place the board upon
a fair basis for making such contracts and
for receiving bids for the sales of such power,
it is hereby expressly authorized, either from
appropriations made by Congress or from
funds secured from the sale of such power,
or from funds secured from the sale of bonds
hereafter provided for, to construct, lease,
purchase, or authorize the construction of
transmission lines within transmission dis¬
tance from the place where generated, and
to Interconnect with other systems.”
The Bonneville Act embodies this policy in
sections 2 (b) and 4 (a), as follows:
“Sec. 2 (b) . In order to encourage the
widest possible use of all electric energy that
can be generated and marketed and to pro¬
vide reasonable outlets therefor, and to pre¬
vent the monopolization thereof by limited
groups, the administration is authorized and
directed to provide, construct, operate, main¬
tain, and improve such electric transmission
lines and substations, and facilities and
structures appurtenant thereto, as he finds
necessary, desirable, or appropriate for the
purpose of transmitting electric energy,
available for sale, from the Bonneville project
to existing and potential markets and, for the
purpose of Interchange of electric energy, to
interconnect the Bonneville project with
other Federal projects and publicly owned
power systems now or hereafter constructed.”
“Sec. 4. (a) In order to insure that the
facilities for the generation of electric energy
at the Bonneville project shall be operated
for the benefit of the general public, and par¬
ticularly domestic and rural consumers, the
Administrator shall at all times, in disposing
of electric energy generated at said project,
give preference to public bodies and coopera¬
tives.”
The Fort Peck Act contains sections 2 (b)
and 4 (a) practically identical with those
quoted from the Bonneville Act.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I wish
to emphasize some of the arguments
made by me last Wednesday in opposi¬
tion to the so-called Bailey amendment.
The proposed amendment would limit
the Federal Government to a single pur¬
chaser who would be in a position prac¬
tically to dictate terms. In other words,
the Federal Government would be placed
in the position little better than that of
•building power projects for private mo¬
nopolies. The sections from the various
acts placed in the Record a few moments
ago by me are clearly designed to avoid
such a situation and the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Ashwander case,
involving the T. V. A., recognized the
right of the Federal Government to full
opportunity to market its power in such
a way as best to serve the public interest.
The experiences of the Federal Gov¬
ernment in connection with the market¬
ing of Muscle Shoals power, prior to the
creation of the T. V. A., prove conclu¬
sively the fallacy of the proposed amend¬
ment. The private power company serv¬
ing the region was paying less than 3
mills per kilowatt-hour for the power,
while retailing power to residential con¬
sumers in the area for as much as 8
cents. The distinguished Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Hill] called attention to
the matter last Wednesday.
The proposed amendment is in conflict
with the Government’s general power
policy as embodied in the acts heretofore
referred to ajid in the Rural Electrifica¬
tion Administration Act. That policy is
designed to assure the widest possible
distribution of eiectricity at the lowest
possible rates in order to build up the
economic life of the regions in which
power can be made available. The pur¬
pose includes the development of indus¬
try, the electrification of farms, the im¬
provement of home life, and the general
raising of living standards.
To accomplish this broad purpose, the
Federal Government must retain the au¬
thority to deliver power without the
“by your leave” of the local monopoly,
whose high rates may be thwarting this
very purpose. Thus in the Brazos River
area in Texas, the decision of the Brazos
River Authority to build transmission
lines and sell power to rural electric co¬
operatives led to a reduction from 12
mills to 6 mills per kilowatt-hour in the
rates which the private company in¬
sisted it must charge for wholesale
power supply to such cooperatives.
The proposed amendment is basically
in conflict with the fundamental legal
concept of such public services as the
supplying of electricity. Historically
such services have been universally
recognized by the law as public or gov-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8481
ernmental functions which the Govern¬
ment may perform itself, through its
own agency, or permit a private agency
to perform. In the latter case, the pri¬
vate agency is performing a public func¬
tion and must be subject to govern¬
mental control.
The Federal agency responsible for
marketing publicly developed power
from resources subject to the authority
of Congress must not be hamstrung in
its efforts to perform this public func¬
tion in whatever way will best serve the
public interest.
I understand that it is proposed to
modify the Bailey amendment so as to
permit the Secretary of the Interior to
build lines for the use of cooperatives
that sell in rural areas. Such an amend¬
ment would Improve the Bailey amend¬
ment, but preference would still remain
In the hands of private industry.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
is on agreeing to the committee amend¬
ment, as modified, to section 5, on page 4
of the bill. On this question the yeas
and nays have been ordered.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
let me inquire what the modification is.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend¬
ment as modified will be stated.
The Legislative Clerk. It is proposed
to amend section 5 by striking out all the
language after the word “cooperatives”
and the period on page 4, line 25, and
ending on page 5, line 7, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
for the complete coordination of such power
and energy with other power developments,
both private and public, in the area con¬
tiguous with such projects. It shall be
stipulated in connection with any sale that
any and all savings realized by the purchasers
shall be passed on under Federal regulation
where no State regulation exists to the con¬
suming public : Provided, That unless 90 per¬
cent of the firm power produced at such
projects shall be demanded or purchased
within 3 years after completion of construc¬
tion of such projects, the Secretary of the
Interior Is authorized to construct trans¬
mission lines for the purpose of selling such
power at wholesale.
So that section 5 as modified will read
as follows:
Sec. 5. Electric power and energy generated
at reservoir projects under the control of the
War Department and in the opinion of the
Secretary of War not required in the opera¬
tion of such projects shall be delivered to the
Secretary of the Interior, who shall transmit
and dispose of such power and energy in such
manner as to encourage the most widespread
use thereof at the lowest possible rates to
consumers consistent with sound business
principles, the rate schedules to become effec¬
tive upon confirmation and approval by the
Federal Power Commission. Preference in
the sale of such power and energy shall be
given to public bodies and cooperatives. The
sale of such electric power as may be gen¬
erated at reservoir projects shaU be made at
the point of production, without special privi¬
lege or discrimination, so as to provide for the
complete coordination of such power and
energy with other power developments, both
private and public, in the area contiguous
with such projects. It shall be stipulated in
connection with any sale that any and all
savings realized by the purchasers shall be
passed on imder Federal regulation where no
State regulation exists, to the consuming
public: Provided, That unless 90 percent of
the firm power produced at such projects shall
be demanded or pxnchased within 3 years
after completion of construction of such proj¬
ects, the Secretary of the Interior is author¬
ized to construct transmission lines for the
purpose of selling such power at wholesale.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, to
the pending amendment, I offer the
amendment, which I send to the desk to
be added at the end of the pending
amendment.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend¬
ment to the amendment will be stated.
The Legislative Clerk. It is proposed
that the following proviso be added to
the amendment as modified:
Provided, That nothing herein shall pro¬
hibit the building of such transmission lines
by the Federal Government or the Secretary
of the Interior with Federal funds to supply
rural electric associations organized for the
purpose of supplying electric energy to rural
districts.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I have no
objection to the amendment. I have as¬
sured the distinguished Senator from
Alabama that I would accept his amend¬
ment, and I ask that my amendment be
modified according to the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Alabama.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
is on agreeing to the amendment offered
by the Senator from Alabama [Mr.
Bankhead] to the so-called Bailey
amendment, being the committee
amendment, as modified, on page 4, after
line 13.
The amendment to the committee
amendment as modified was agreed to.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, what
have we voted on?
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate
has voted on the amendment offered by
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Bank-
head] to the committee amendment as
modified, being the so-called Bailey
amendment. The amendment to the
amendment was agreed to.
The question now recurs on the modi¬
fied committee amendment as amended,
on which the yeas and nays have been
ordered.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, in
the absence of the Senator from Con¬
necticut [Mr. Maloney] I wish to in¬
quire what has happened to the amend¬
ment which he gave notice last Wednes¬
day he would offer? His amendment
would strike out in line 8, page 3, of the
so-called Bailey amendment the words
“demanded or” and the words “within 3
years after”, and insert before the word
“completion” the word “upon”, so that
the amendment of the Senator from
North Carolina would at that place read
as follows:
That unless 90 percent of the firm power
produced at such projects shall be purchased
upon completion of construction of such
projects, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to construct transmission lines
for the purpose of selling such power at
wholesale.
Many of us are very much interested
In the amendment. In the absence of
the Senator from Connecticut I hesitate
to press it. It would, however, make
much difference in my attitude toward
the whole committee amendment if the
amendment of the Senator from Con¬
necticut were agreed to.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, the Sen¬
ator from Connecticut [Mr. Maloney]
sent word to me that he would be pres¬
ent in the Chamber at 1:15 o’clock this
afternoon, and not before. I should
very much like to have the final vote
on the pending amendment deferred un¬
til the Senator from Connecticut has
arrived. I am agreeable to his amend¬
ment, and I believe that I have the right
to submit it myself and get it before the
Senate at this time. If the Senator from
Michigan wishes to have me yield to him
for that purpose, I shall be glad to do so.
Mr. VANDENBERG. I should be very
glad if the able Senator from North Caro¬
lina would accept the amendment.
Mr. BAILEY. I should like to sub¬
mit it in order that it may be before the
Senate for consideration. Mr. President,
I send forward the amendment hereto¬
fore referred to by the Senator from
Connecticut, known as the Maloney
amendment. I strike out the name
“Maloney” and substitute in its place
the name “Bailey,” but with the un¬
derstanding that if the Senator from
Connecticut comes into the Chamber and
wishes the amendment to be known as
his amendment, it may be so arranged.
It is an amendment to the so-called
Bailey amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Lucas in the chair). The clerk will
read the amendment offered by the Sen¬
ator from North Carolina.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 3, line
8, of the so-called Bailey amendment
it is proposed to amend by striking out
the words “demanded or” and the words
“within 3 years after”, and insert be¬
fore the word “completion” the word
“upon”, so that the amendment of the
Senator from North Carolina would at
that place read as follows:
That unless 90 percent of the firm power
produced at such projects shall be purchased
upon completion of construction of such
projects, the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to construct transmission lines
for the purpose of selling such power at
wholesale.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
the amendment would strike out the
3-year twilight zone which has been, in
my judgment, appropriately criticized.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I should
like to say a word with reference to the
proposed amendment. I should like to
make it clear that I do not propose to
vote for the amendment in any form
unless it affects favorably the essential
character of the original committee
amendment. I cannot see how the
amendment would overcome the objec¬
tion some of us have to the committee
amendment. In the first place, I believe
the amendment to be impractical. It
contemplates that by the time of the
completion of a dam private companies
shall have purchased in an effective way
all or 90 percent of the firm power to be
generated. That would mean that in
contemplation of the completion of the
dam, private companies must have con¬
structed systems, laid them out, and
actually begun the purchase of power.
8482 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 24
If I understand the language of the
amendment correctly, by the time of the
completion of the dam. In the first
place, I doubt very seriously whether
private companies could conform to such
requirements. I can conceive of an
interval of time existing during which
private companies might not have con¬
structed the lines to use the power which
would be furnished. The Federal Gov¬
ernment would not be authorized to con¬
struct the lines, and the result would be
that the power would be in existence and
available, and yet no use could be made
of it.
But, as I have said, the proposed
amendment would not overcome the es¬
sential objection which some of us have
raised to the committee amendment as
amended, namely, that nothing in the
committee amendment lays down any
requirement that the rates at which pri¬
vate companies may distribute power
shall be reasonable rates.
In the second place, there is no re¬
quirement in the so-called Bailey
amendment that the private companies
which would have the right to avail
themselves of the power shall serve the
area which ought to be served by the
power, control of which the private com¬
panies would have.
Until the two essential deficiencies to
which I have referred can be met, I can¬
not bring myself into accord with the
so-called Bailey amendment, and I do
not see how the deficiencies could be
cured by the amendment which has just
been offered by the Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I wish
to state that the modification which
would be brought about in the Bailey
amendment by the acceptance of the
so-called Maloney amendment would not
remove my fundamental objection to the
Bailey amendment. All it would do
would be to require that the preferential
status proposed by the Bailey amend¬
ment to be given to private corporations
shall be exercised by the time the dam
has been constructed. All that would be
required would be for the proper authori¬
ties to make a contract in advance of
the construction of the dam for 90 per¬
cent of the power to be generated by it.
So long as the private corporations con¬
sumed 90 percent of the power in per¬
petual exercise of the right given them,
no one else could purchase any power
unless it be the 10 percent remaining
after the 90 percent had been consumed.
As I said the other day, I am not willing
to give to anyone a preferential status
in the consumption and use of power
made possible by, the expenditure of pub¬
lic money. If any preference is to be
given it should be given to cooperatives,
and, I believe, municipalities should be
included with them. They are not now
included in the amendment.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Yes; they are.
Mr. BARKLEY. They are not in¬
cluded in the Bankhead amendment.
So all the amendment would do would
be to remove the 3-year period and give
to the preferred companies the right to
move in during the construction of a dam
and contract for the purchase of the
power. So long as they consumed 90
percent of it, whether for 10 years or a
hundred years, no one else would have
any right to it. I assume that if they
consumed 90 percent of the power, but
little additional difffculty would be en¬
countered in contracting for the entire
amount. So even if the amendment
were modified, a great many people would
be excluded who should have the benefit
of the power. For that reason I cannot
support the amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. 1 yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Does not the Senator
from Kentucky understand that the
Bankhead amendment would not give
any preference to municipal plants, but
only to rural communities?
Mr. BARKLEY. That is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. There are hundreds of
small towns and small cities and some
larger cities all over the United States
that have municipal plants, and even
with the Bankhead amendment added,
they would be unable to purchase low-
cost power from these Government-
constructed dams.
Mr. BARKLEY. The vice of this whole
amendment is that it makes it neces¬
sary to come in on short notice and upon
the verge of a vote to make modifica¬
tions by piecemeal to take care of some¬
body in whom a Senator may be inter¬
ested.
I agree with the Senator from Ala¬
bama and all other Senators that rural
electrification organizations and cooper¬
atives ought to be put upon an equal
basis, at least, and, in my judgment, they
ought to be given some preference. We
have encouraged them; we have set them
up by act of Congress; we are loaning
money to them on an amortization plan
in order that they may function. Now
certainly we ought to encourage them by
giving them some degree of preference
in the case of the power it is proposed
to create by money from the Treasury
of the United States. I sympathize with
that attitude, but the necessity at the
last moment to take care of that situa¬
tion by an amendment illustrates the
vice of now trying to deal with a perma¬
nent policy in reversal of what we have
followed for nearly 40 years. I believe
for that reason the whole amendment
ought to be rejected.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. It seems to me
there is an inconsistency involved. The
Federal Government is going to build
some power dams and, according to the
language of the amendment, when it sells
the power generated at the dams tha
rates shall be passed upon by the Fed¬
eral Power Commission, unless within
the State where the energy is sold there
is a State regulatory body. It seems to
me it is inconsistent for the Federal Gov¬
ernment to spend Federal money to build
these dams and power stations, and turn
them over to a State to regulate the sale
of the power which may be generated.
Take, for instance, the rural electrifica¬
tion systems which are spreading all over
the country. They are cooperatives, and
are not operated for profit. Would the
State under this provision have the right
to regulate rural electrification rates,
and should a State in any way regulate
a Federal project and the price and
manner of the sale of the power?
Mr. BARKLEY. The object, appar¬
ently, of the language inserted on that
subject is,' if there is a State regulatory
authority that it shall take over the con¬
trol of the distribution and rates which
are to be charged for power generated by
a project that has been instituted and
paid for by the Government of the
United States.
The amendment provides that what¬
ever savings there may be shall be passed
on to the consumer, but I do not know
how practical that moral gesture may
be. The amendment does not implement
any way by which it can be done. There
is no way for the Congress to compel a
State regulatory body to reduce rates be¬
cause of any savings that may be brought
about by the construction of a Federal
dam. We certainly cannot compel them
to do it if they are not willing to do it.
So it is null and void. It does not set up
any machinery by which it can be done,
even if the Federal Government has con¬
trol of it. I think that is a vice in it,
rather than an accomplished legislative
fact.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. The State regula¬
tory body is, of course, a State agency.
Mr. BARKLEY. It certainly seems to
me, in accordance with the Senator’s
idea, that if the Government of the
United States is to pay for these dams
and power projects across navigable
streams, on which it has exclusive juris¬
diction, it ought not thereafter to sur¬
render its jurisdiction to some State
regulatory body over which Congress has
no control and the Federal Government
has no control.
Mr.' HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. In other words, the adop¬
tion of the Maloney amendment to the
Bailey amendment would not in any way
correct the fundamental wrong in the
Bailey amendment, which is the giving
of a priority to private profit-making
companies over public nonprofit power
organizations. Even if the Bailey
amendment to the Bankhead-Maloney
amendment is adopted, it means that the
public bodies, towns, cities, and munici¬
palities that operate not for profit but for
the benefit of the people cannot get one
kilowatt of the power generated at the
dams unless some power company says,
“We do not want the power." Is not that
true?
Mr. BARKLEY. That is correct.
Mr. HILL. So the Maloney amend¬
ment does not correct any fundamental
wrong in the Bailey amendment.
Mr. BARKIjEY. The Maloney amend¬
ment simply requires a private concern
to contract for the use of the power
prior to the completion of the dam, and,
if they want it, that is what they will do.
Mr. HILL. Instead of giving them 3
years to make up their minds, it re¬
quires them to be a little more prompt,
but it does not affect their preference
and their power.
Mr. BARKLEY. Or their monopoly.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct.
It does not affect their monopoly.
Mr. BARKLEY. And so long as they
exercise a monopoly, then, for a thou¬
sand years, perhaps, nobody else would
be able to obtain any of the power cre¬
ated by the dam.
Mr. HILL. In reference to the amend¬
ment offered by my colleague [Mr.
Bankhead] with respect to rural coop¬
eratives, the R. E. A. advises me that
some of these cooperatives get their
power from public power bodies of
cities, towns, and municipalities, and, of
course, there could be no protection by
the Bankhead amendment for such or¬
ganizations. The R. E. A. cooperatives
could not get the power.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey] to the committee
amendment, as amended.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I will
occupy just a few moments, I hope, by
way of coming to an end of the discus¬
sion. I have no intention of delaying
matters, although I should like a delay
until the Senator from Connecticut [Mr,
Maloney] can be in the Chamber.
What has just been said in the Senate
by way of objection to the amendment
which I accepted in aid of the passage
of the bill and in an effort to accommo¬
date the amendment to those who were
objecting to it reminds me of the situa¬
tion of a far better Man than I, or any
of us, could ever hope to be, and of what
He said when He found Himself which¬
ever way He turned misinterpreted, con¬
tradicted, and opposed. He said:
They —
The men of this generation —
are like unto children sitting in the market
place, and calling to one another, and say¬
ing, We have piped unto you and ye have
not danced; we have mourned to you, and
ye have not wept.
I think the gentlemen who differ with
me now in the matter of the so-called
Maloney amendment which I offered for
the Senator from Connecticut are in just
that position. They have piped and
then complained of me for not dancing.
If I am in a sober appearing state of
mind and they moan and I do not weep,
they complain of me for not weeping. I
understand that of course; I am not tak¬
ing it personally. They are merely
against this proposal anyway no matter
what may be done.
Now let me illustrate. The last pro¬
viso was by way of aiding the Secretary
of the Interior to build transmission
lines, and it is now interpreted to aid him
in building them at once when the dam
is finished. It is now being interpreted
as an aggrandizement of power by the
power companies. When it was not here
they said it was, “Take it out.” The fact
of the matter is that it is not even by way
of aggrandizing the power of anybody.
My amendment declares: -
Preference In the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives.
That is the preference. That is my
amendment. Some speak as if it were a
preference to the power companies.
They speak of the monopoly of the power
companies, and maintaining a monopoly,
and perpetuating a monopoly. I sup¬
pose that is when they piped and I did
not dance.
Now, with further reference to the
amendment, gentlemen say all this
power, or 90 percent of it, must be bought
by the power companies. That is not in
the bill at all and is not in the amend¬
ment. It could be bought by anybody
who could buy it and would run the
transmission lines for the purpose. What
becomes of the argument about monop¬
oly?
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BAILEY. I yield.
Mr. BARKLEY. Whoever purchased
the power must run his transmission
line to the point of production, and
have it ready to take the power at the
time the dam is completed, under the
Senator’s amendment as it is now before
the Senate.
Mr. BAILEY. Yes; but anybody can
do it.
Mr. BARKLEY. Theoretically any¬
body might.
Mr. BAILEY. No; it is not theoreti¬
cally. My conception of the amendment
was that it aided the Secretary of the
Interior in running, transmission lines,
and therefore would allay some of the
opposition to the amendment, though, I
recognize, not all. But we are now told
it makes matters worse. I do not think
so at all. As originally offered the
amendment provided:
Unless 90 percent of the firm power pro¬
duced at such projects shall be demanded or
purchased —
By “demanded” I meant called for. I
used “demand” in the market sense.
“Within 3 years.” That is the way
it read. As now proposed to be amended
it reads:
shall be purchased upon completion of con¬
struction of such projects, the Secretary of
the Interior is authorized to construct trans¬
mission lines for the purpose of selling such
power at wholesale.
It is an enabling proviso to the Secre¬
tary of the Interior, with a view to the
disposition of the power produced at the
dam.
Mr, VANDENBERG. Mr. Presi¬
dent —
Mr. BAILEY. I shall yield to the
Senator presently.
I think that as the amendment will
read as amended by the amendment of
the Senator from Connecticut it will
practically guarantee the immediate sale
of 90 percent of power produced at flood
control dams and at river and harbor
dams, and I know of nothing that would
so advance the cause of flood control as
such an amendment, I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Michigan.
Mr. VANDENBERG. I think the last
statement made by the Senator is one
of the most persuasive that can be made.
I cannot escape the conclusion that the
amendment as now drawn virtually
guarantees a solvent, paying operation
in a Government project, and I know
of no sanity which would assess that
as a crime.
8483
What I wanted to ask the Senator was
this: In the sale of the 90 percent of
the power we go back to line 20, on page
2, and in the sale of the 90 percent,
“Preference shall be given to public bod¬
ies and cooperatives.” Is not that true?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes.
Mr. VANDENBERG. How can any¬
one make monopoly out of that?
Mr. BAILEY. There is no monopoly.
If there could be an economic justifica-"
tion beyond all question for the construc¬
tion of what we call the multiple pur¬
pose dam — that is, for flood control plus
electrical production, or river and harbor
locks or dams plus electrical produc¬
tion — the policy which I have here pro¬
vided, thanks to the Senator from Con¬
necticut, would give us the perfect eco¬
nomic justification, and instead of ar¬
resting the process of flood control — and
it may be arrested the way we are go¬
ing — it would greatly aid it and promote
it.
I submit that to the reasonable con¬
sideration of Senators who hear me. I
think every Senator knows that in the
14 years I have been in the Senate I
have never made a personal matter of
anything, and I do not intend to do so.
I have never tried to “get anything by,”
so far as I know, except upon its merits,
and that is all I ask here, and that is
all I shall ever ask. If any Senator de¬
cides that the merits are the other way,
it is perfectly agreeable to me, and I
respect his judgment, just as I hope he
will respect mine in taking the opposite
view.
Let us come down to the main point.
It was stated here this morning that this
was a reversal of the power policy of the
Government. I may be very ignorant
about that, but it is my judgment we
have had no power policy, certainly no
policy with respect to the distribution of
power. This matter was provoked, not
by me, but by the Secretary of the In¬
terior coming to the Committee on Com¬
merce and to the subcommittee with
what he conceived to be a policy, but
when I read it, I said, “No, this policy is
destructive of the existing power com¬
panies in this country, and I do not think
the Senate of the United States wishes to
be destructive.” Say everything you
please against this one and that one, one
of the cornerstones of our economic
structure is the investment of money in
private enterprise, and, of course, power
should be available to private enterprise.
Behind us is a period now of 50 years
of electrical development, and we sud¬
denly come to a policy proposed by the
Secretary of the Interior in which the
Government can use the dams we are to
build in the name of flood control, and
later on in the name of river and harbor
development, for the purpose of going
into any State and any community and
taking off the cream of the business, and
leaving the power company, with all its
investment and all its services, high and
dry.
Mr. President, the companies may
have been very bad, but they have not
been that bad. There Is no use, as we
often say, of burning down the house to
get rid of the rats. There may have
8484 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
been rats, but are we prepared here now,
in a sort of revulsion against big things,
to go to this length? Of course the
power business must be a big thing. If
the Senate will hear me a moment about
that; it is not possible to sell power
cheaply except by volume. There must
be large volume in order to get a low
rate. I heard the Senator from Mon¬
tana speaking of reductions in his State,
or some other Senator making some re¬
marks along that line. The reductions
in North Carolina have come year after
year, and most of them voluntarily, be¬
cause the business has been growing, the
output has been demanded. So we meet
the recording of the fact that they are
big, but after all they are not so big as
Mr. Ickes would be if we turned the
whole power business of this country
over to him.
We must make our choice here. We
can go on with a policy placed in his
hands as administrator, and I have
every reason to believe he will be admin¬
istrator for 49 months more, probably 50,
and if his name comes before us, I shall
vote to confirm him. I have nothing on
earth against him as administrator of
the Department of the Interior, and no
disposition to fight his nomination. But
if we proceed with this policy, if we do not
now restrain it, while we are about to
build a billion dollars’ worth of flood-
control dams, when it is proposed that we
shall spread over the country seven
T. V. A.’s, unless we now put proper re¬
straints in our policy, we simply ordain
the regime of Government power, un¬
regulated by the State, paying no taxes to
the State, and in the hands of whatever
administration may happen to be elected.
That, Mr. President, is what I see in
this situation. I must make a choice,
and I choose to see to it that those who
invested their money in power companies
are respected as investors. I choose to
say that corporations which have gone
forth and developed this market and
supplied this power shall not be struck
down merely because the United States
as a government has the power to do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator from North Carolina on
the amendment has expired.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I had
about finished, but I believe I could ex¬
tend my time by speaking on the Bank-
head amendment to the committee
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Bankhead amendment has been agreed
to.
Mr. BAILEY. And I have no right to
speak on the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
agreement, as the Chair understands it,
pertains to the pending amendment, so
it will not be in order for the Senator to
speak on the bill.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President -
Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the Senator
from Arkansas. I can do that, can I not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator from North Carolina has
expired. He cannot yield to anyone.
Mr. McCLETiLAN. I ask for time In
my own right. Mr. President. I wish to
ask the Senator from North Carolina a
question or two. I do not believe I have
used any time on this amendment,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Arkansas is recognized,
Mr. BAILEY. If the Senator takes the
floor he may ask me a question, or if he
prefers I will ask him a question. I will
answer any question the Senator may
wish to ask me. I think that is the
better way to do it.
Mr. McClellan. I should be glad to
offer the Senator a further opportiuilty
to discuss any feature of the amendment
he cares to, but first I did want to ask the
Senator a question.
Mr. BAILEY. Let me say, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that I would not think of taking
any advantage by way of extension of
time. When it was announced that my
time had expired I had said about all I
wished to say, but if the Senator from
Arkansas wishes to ask me a question, I
shall be glad to answer. I do not think
1 should undertake to obtain extension of
time which is limited under the order,
either directly or indirectly. I have con¬
cluded my remarks. I have had my 15
minutes. I like the 15-minute rule.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, in
all seriousness I wanted to ask the Sen¬
ator a question regarding the pending
amendment. First, I wish to say that I
think the Maloney amendment — that is,
the amendment which the Senator from
North Carolina has offered on behalf of
the Senator from Connecticut, and
which I believe has been adopted, does
correct one of the evils of the original
amendment. I think it improves the
original amendment considerably.
Mr. BAILEY. Let me ask the Sena¬
tor a question. Does he not think that
the Bankhead amendment, which I ac¬
cepted, very greatly improves it?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Yes; I think it
does. I wanted to make reference to it
also. I now wish to ask the Senator
from North Carolina a question. It
strikes me that with the modification of
the amendment there is now possibly an
ambiguity in the whole amendment. I
refer to the language on line 22 of page
2 of the Senator’s original amendment
where it provides —
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production.
That seems to be mandatory and em¬
phatic. The amendment originally pro¬
posed by the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Maloney] provides for the coi>-
struction of transmission lines after a
certain period of time, and I assume
that it is intended that the power trans¬
mitted over those lines shall be sold not
at the project but at the place where
the territory is to be served.
Mr. BAILEY. Let me clear the Sen¬
ator’s mind. That is not an ambiguity
nor is it a contradiction. A proviso al¬
ways modifies the force and effect of the
main statute or the main language.
One proviso may modify the force and
effect of another. It simply says that
this shall be done provided, however, it
shall not be done this way or that way
or the other way. It is a limitation.
Mr. McCLELLAN. The language is
probably adequate.
Mr. BAILEY. I will say, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that I do not know whether the
matter will ever go to conference. I
believe I will be allowed to mtake a mere
November 24
personal statement. Whatever amend¬
ment I take to conference. If I am a
member of the committee, I shall take in
absolute good faith. I shall respect the
instructions of the Senate. And I will
say that any little ambiguity which may
appear or any doubt which may seem to
exist can be corrected in conference.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Arkansas yield to me
so that I may ask a question of the Sen¬
ator from North Carolina?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield to the Sen¬
ator for that purpose.
Mr. ELLENDER. Last Wednesday I
brought to the attention of the Senate
that some of the language in the com¬
mittee amendment, which taken with the
so-called Bailey amendment, is some¬
what contradictory in terms.
Mr. BAILEY. Does the Senator mean
the language of the original amendment
compared with the language as it is
now?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. The commit¬
tee amendment that we are now con¬
sidering, when taken with the Senator’s
proposed amendment.
Mr. BAILEY. The later amendment
was not Intended to go along with the
original, otherwise I would not have of¬
fered it.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understood the
Senator.
Mr. BAILEY. I ran along with the
original amendment as far as I could.
When I could not run any further along
with it I wrote some language of my own.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that,
but if the remainder of the committee
amendment is read in connection with
the amendment that the distinguished
Senator proposes, there is a contradic¬
tion in some respects. If the Bailey
amendment is adopted that part of sec¬
tion 5, on line 23, of page 4, reading:
“Preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies
and cooperatives’’ will be retained, and
following that language will be -
Mr. BAILEY. That will be in my
amendment, also.
Mr. ELLENDER. No.
Mr. BAILEY. Oh, yes. Here is the
amendment -
Mr. ELLENDER. No. The language
I have just quoted is not offered by the
Bailey amendment. It remains in the
bill and will be followed by this language
from the Bailey amendment:
The sale of such electric power as may be
generated at reservoir projects shall be made
at the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination.
The words “The sale of such electric
power shall be made without special
privilege or discrimination” certainly
nullies the language “preference in the
sale of such power and energy shall be
given to public bodies and cooperatives.”
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator is reading
something else. Read the language just
read by the Senator and it will be seen
that it appears in my amendment. The
Senator said it was not in my amend¬
ment. The language in my amendment
Is I
1944
8485
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Preference In the sale of such power and j
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives.
That is in the Bailey amendment.
Mr. ELLENDER. 1 beg the Senator’s
pardon, but that language remains in
the section and is not affected by the
Bailey amendment.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator said it was
not.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is my conten¬
tion. The language appearing on page
2, line 24, of the Bailey amendment nulli¬
fies that, in my opinion, because that
language reads that it shall be sold
“without special privilege or discrimina¬
tion.’’ ’That means, as I understand that
language, that it is to be sold to private
concerns without first offering it to co¬
operatives and public bodies. The lan¬
guage has the effect of nullifying the pro¬
vision in the committee amendment
reading :
Preference In the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives.
Mr. BAILEY. No. One is a preference
which must be given according to the
law as written. When it comes to the
sale, the sale must be made without spe¬
cial privilege or discrimination between
those who come to buy. There wiU -be no
difficulty on earth, even in a magistrate’s
court, in reconciling that language.
Mr. ELLENDER. I will not argue the
point further, but it is my contention that
a conflict exists. Let me ask the Sena¬
tor another question: The Bankhead
amendment, as I understand it, provides
that the Secretary of the Interior shall
have the right to build power lines so as
to supply rural electric associations.
Mr. BAILEY. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. I notice that the
same privilege is not accorded to public
bodies. Was that phase of the matter
discussed with the Senator?
Mr. BAILEY. It was not discussed.
Mr. ELLENDER. I wonder if the Sen¬
ator from North Carolina would ob¬
ject —
Mr. BAILEY. Yes. I think that I have
gone far enough, and I do not think the
Senator would vote for it even then. The
whole idea is as contained in the quota¬
tion I previously gave:
We have piped unto you, and ye have not
danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have
not wept.
I am not disposed to undertake to pipe
or to dance or to mourn or to weep. I
am going all the way down the road.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator may be
in error as to what my position would
be if public bodies were included. As I
understand, the Senator would object to
adding to the Bankhead amendment
“public bodies’’ so that the amendment
would then read:
Provided further. That nothing herein shall
prohibit the building of such transmission
lines by the Federal Government or the Sec¬
retary of the Interior with Federal funds to
supply public bodies and also rmal electric
associations organized for the purpose of
supplying electric energy to rural districts.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator is correct
in his understanding.
Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator.
I Mr. HILL. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Downey in the chair). Does the Sen¬
ator from Arkansas yield to the Senator
from Alabama?
Mr. McClellan. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Alabama.
Mr. HILL. The Senator from Arkan¬
sas agrees, does he not, that under the
Bailey amendment, modified by the Ma¬
loney amendment, if any private power
company wishes to buy 90 percent or
more of the firm power that the Secre¬
tary of the Interior could not build a
transmission line?
Mr. McClellan. I think that is cor¬
rect, unless the Bankhead amendment
would take care of that situation.
Mr. HILL. Even if we admit for the
sake of discussion that the Bankhead
amendment would take care of it, the
Bankhead amendment would take care
of it only so far as rural cooperatives are
concerned. It would not take care of the
situation so far as a town, city, or mu¬
nicipality was concerned, which might
also be supplying a rural cooperative.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Let me say to the
Senator from Alabama that I think the
Bankhead amendment and the Maloney
amendment greatly improve the pending
amendment, and eliminate some of the
objectionable provisions in it. I believe
that public bodies ought to be added. If
that is done, I shall support the Bailey
amendment.
Mr. HILL. If we add public bodies, of
course, there is no Bailey amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not know
that that is quite a correct statement.
Mr. HILL. Is not that true? Is not
that what the Bailey amendment is all
about? If we add public bodies, so as
^to take in everything, then the: a is no
*Bailey amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not under¬
stand that the Bailey amendment pre¬
cludes cooperatives or public bodies from
participating in the purchase of 90 per¬
cent of the power. They have an equal
right to purchase it. In fact, they are
given preference.
Mr. HILL. The Secretary of the In¬
terior would be prevented from building
a transmission line if some private power
company should purchase 90 percent or
more of the power.
Mr. McCLELLAN. If the private
power company should purchase 90 per-,
cent of the power, I believe that under
the Bankhead amendment a line could
still be built to a rural cooperative. I
do not believe that would be precluded.
Mr. HILL. The Senator realizes, as a
practical matter, when he speaks about
building a line out to a rural cooperative,
that when it is undertaken to build
transmission lines, costly as they are,
there must be more than one little rural
cooperative to serve. Very likely the line
would have to be tied in to cities, towns,
and rural cooperatives which may be get¬
ting power from some town or munici¬
pality.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I think that Is
true.
Mr. HILL. I agree with the Senator
that perhaps a line should be built to a
rural cooperative. As a practical mat¬
ter, I believe that the amendment, as now
submitted, does pretty much what the
Senator from North Carolina, who is al¬
ways frank and honest with the Senate,
stated in the beginning that it would do.
It would mean that private power com¬
panies would get all the power.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I am of the opin¬
ion at the moment that if public bodies
were added to the Bankhead amendment
the Bailey amendment would then pro¬
vide a safe and sound policy. I stated
last Wednesday that I would not support
the Bailey amendment in its present
form. But if public bodies were added,
then I can see no objection to the Bailey
amendment.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, may I
direct a question to the Senator from
Alabama?
Mr. HILL. The Senator from Arkan¬
sas has the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dow¬
ney in the chair). 'The time of the
Senator from Arkansas has almost ex¬
pired. He still has about 2 minutes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield the floor.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, the
Senator from Alabama referred to a
situation in which private interests or
others were taking 90 percent of the
power, and was wondering whether or
not rural agencies would be able to get
power. Does the Senator suppose for a
moment that a private agency would not
be glad to sell power to all customers, in¬
cluding rural agencies? Under the terms
of the bill, would it not get the power
at a reduced rate, and is there not an
express provision that all savings which
arise out of the operation must be passed
on?
Mr. HILL. The Senator’s question
goes to the very fundamentals of public
power. To answer the Senator’s ques¬
tion logically, we would abolish all pub¬
lic power projects and go back to the old
days before we had public power proj¬
ects. The main reason why public power
projects came into being was that regu¬
lation had failed in large measure. That
is why the people demanded public power
projects, in order that there might be
provided yardsticks as a means of con¬
trolling the rates of private power com¬
panies, as well as to provide cheap power
for the power consumers of the country.
Mr. BURTON. It seems to me that the
Senator from Alabama has missed the
reason why we had public pqwer. It was
not because private regulation had fallen
down. It was because private power was
not supplied at all in certain places. Un¬
der the Bailey amendment power would
be made available to private agencies,
and therefore the situation feared by the
Senator from Alabama would not be
brought about. The Senator fears that
there would be a lack of power, and that
public agencies would have to buy their
power from private power companies. If
private industries, including power in¬
dustries, are in a position to supply pow¬
er, they should be given an opportunity
to do so, particularly if they are already
in that line of business.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Pi-esident, I
should like to discuss the amendment
briefly. I regret that my train was late,
and that it was necessary for the Sena-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 24
8486
tor from North Carolina tMr. Bailey] to
offer the amendment.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I ask that
the name of the Senator from Connecti¬
cut be substituted for mine as the author
of the amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. I thank the Senator;
but I have no pride of authorship. 1 was
trying to improve and perfect the Sena¬
tor’s amendment.
Mr. President, I shall be very brief.
First, I should like to point out, in con¬
nection with the statement made once
or twice by the able Senator from Ala¬
bama [Mr. Hill], that it is provided in
the so-called Bailey amendment that
whatever savings are made as a result of
the production and sale of power under
Government auspices must of necessity
be passed on to consumers. So I do not
give great weight to that particular
argument. The amendment now under
consideration makes provision, as the
Senate knows, that unless the private
power companies or others purchase 90
percent of the so-called firm power made
available, and purchase it immediately,
the Federal Government is authorized to
go ahead with the construction of trans¬
mission lines. It is a very simple amend¬
ment. I do not believe that any Senator
will object to the amendment. For that
reason I shall not consume any more
time of the Senate.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. PEPPER. Does the able Senator
believe that the adoption of his amend¬
ment would make possible the building
of lines to reach public bodies and co¬
operatives by any other than private
companies?
Mr. MALONEY. I am inclined toward
the view of the Senator from North
Carolina tMr. Bailey] that that would
be permissible under his amendment,
with or without my amendment. As I
understand, my amendment would not
change the situation in that respect.
Mr. PEPPER. Then the amendment
of the Senator from Connecticut would
not confer any power which the Bailey
amendment does not now contain to
build transmission lines to carry power to
public bodies and cooperatives?
Mr. MALONEY. I do not think it
would make any difference. If it would
have any effect, it would very likely be a
favorable effect from the standpoint of
the view of the Senator from Florida.
Mr. PEPPER. I think it is pertinent
to observe that power from a dam can¬
not be delivered to a public body or
cooperative unless a transmission line is
built.
Mr. MALONEY. That is true.
Mr. PEPPER. Either the coopera¬
tives or public bodies must get together
and form an organization to build a
transmission line or they must rely on
the power companies.
Mr. MALONEY. What does the Sen¬
ator mean by relying on the power com¬
panies?
Mr. PEPPER. To build the extension.
Mr. MALONEY. Is it a sin to buy
or to refuse to buy power from private
companies?
Mr. PEPPER. I did not say it was.
I am simply saying that unless provi¬
sion is made in some way or other for
the power to be transmitted to public
bodies and cooperatives it will not get
there, except through the instrumental¬
ity of the private company. That is the
reason why it is necessary to give the
Secretary of the Interior authority to
build transmission lines, unless we pre¬
fer, as the able Senator from North
Carolina distinctly and fairly says he
does, that distribution be by private com¬
panies.
Mr. MALONEY. I certainly favor that
procedure. I favor distribution by pri¬
vate companies. I am among those who
believe that private companies can pro¬
duce power as cheaply as can the Fed¬
eral Government. I cannot think of any
reason under the sun which would per¬
mit the Federal Government to produce
power more reasonably than can private
industry. I favor the production of
power by private companies, under rigid
regulation and under the provisions of
the Bailey amendment, which Insists that
any savings be passed on to the con¬
sumers.
As a matter of fact, in the committee
I offered the language which provided
that they “shall” pass them on. I think
the original words were “may pass them
on.”
Mr. PEPPER. But. Mr. President, the
Senator will admit, will he not, that
watered stock, the birth of unnecessary
holding companies, and excessive profits
would prevent a power company from
getting the power to the consumers at
as cheap a rate as the rate at which the
Government could get it there; would it
not?
Mr. MALONEY. As I said before, in
the bill provision is made for regula¬
tion;
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, let me
inquire whether the Senator will permit
an interruption.
Mr. MALONEY. Certainly,
Ml’. BAILEY. In existing law we have
abundant provision not only to prevent
the issuance of watered stock but also
to get it out of companies which have it.
I understood that was a matter which
had already been accomplished. I see
no trouble about that. We have already
passed a law on that subject, and the law
is in operation.
Mr. MALONEY. When I said a mo¬
ment ago that I would not speak at
greater length because I doubted that
any Senator was opposed to my amend¬
ment, I had in mind that even those who
favor nationalization of power in this
country would find my amendment to
their liking. I wou'd expect that Sena¬
tors opposed to t’ j Bailey amendment
would accept this amendment, because it
seems to me to go somewhat in the direc¬
tion toward which they point.
Mr. MURRAY rose.
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. I should like to in¬
quire of the Senator if he does not appre¬
ciate the fact that a great many of the
corporations which have a monopoly on
power in various sections of the country
are not going to be deprived of their
control as a result of the public-utility
holding-company law. For instance, in
the State of Montana we have the Mon¬
tana Power Co., which was estab¬
lished there some years ago, and which
as a result of the heavy watering of its
stock is compelled to maintain high
rates to earn and pay dividends on its
capital structure. The holding company
law does not affect that situation at all.
That corporation can only be compelled
to lower its rates by having the water
drained out of its capital stock. An ef¬
fort along that line is now being made,
but it is a most difficult thing to accom¬
plish.
So it seems to me that the only way
to handle this situation is by the power
developments, under the legislation we
are proposing to enact, to set up yard¬
sticks throughout the country, and in
that way such companies will be com¬
pelled to have the water removed from
their stocks.
Mr. BAILEY. Certainly the Senator
will not say that what we have or what
we propose is a yardstick, when the Fed¬
eral power set-ups get their money free
and pay no taxes. Of course they have
lower rates.
Mr. MURRAY. Oh, no , Mr. President.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is going
to pay pretty well.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator says it is
going to. But is it doing it? It gets
its money from the Government. It pays
the Government back. That is called a
yardstick.
I was merely pointing out what I think
everyone knows with reference to whether
such operations can be regarded as a
yardstick. That operation may have been
well meant at the time, but now it is a
matter of laughter.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the Senator from
Montana whether there is a regulatory
body in his State.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes; there is. But it
seems powerless to control the power in¬
terests.
Mr. MALONEY. Does the Senator say
it is under the control of the power in¬
terests in his State?
Mr. MURRAY. Well, the power in¬
terests dominate the situation and seem
to prevent any relief to the public.
Mr. MALONEY. I find that very diffi¬
cult to believe.
Mr. MURRAY, The situation is a very
peculiar one, but I will explain it.
Mr. BAILEY. Let me ask the Senator
whether the members of the power com¬
mission in his State are elected by the
people?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes; they are.
Mr. BAILEY. Did not the people of
Montana elect the Senator?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. BAILEY. By the same power they
might elect a good power commission.
Mr. MURRAY, It sometimes happens
that persons they do not want are elected.
Mr. BAILEY. I am sure that was not
so in the case of the Senator.
Mr. MURRAY. Of course, I was
elected in spite of the opposition of the
power interests.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8487
But let me say that virtually every
newspaper in the State is owned by the
Montana Power Co. and the Anaconda
Copper Co., and in that way they are able
to deceive the public. We have very few
independent papers to make the fight in
the public interest.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I
would not trade the two liberal Senators
from Montana for all the reactionary
press men that may operate in his State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
Does he desire to continue to yield?
Mr. MALONEY. Yes, Mr. President;
I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the
point I was endeavoring to make was
that the corporations have their stock
watered. In the State of Montana the
corporations I was describing are com¬
pelled, because of their capital structure,
to maintain high rates. In that way
they prevent industrial development in
the section of the country in which they
operate. For instance, in the State of
Montana the population has for a long
period been declining. The censuses
taken every 10 years for the past 40
years show a decline in population. The
reason for the decline is that we have
no opportunity to develop natural re¬
sources and to bring industfy into the
State. The State is conducted solely
on the basis of a raw-material economy,
and we find the population constantly
dwindling, as shown by the census taken
every 10 years. Unless there can be
some development of cheap power, there
will be no improvement in the situation.
That fact is generally recognized, and it
is well known that the idea of improv¬
ing the situation is not a socialistic one.
Some of the businessmen of the State
are recognizing it. The president of the
Great Northern Railroad, in discussing
it in a public interview in the State of
Montana, pointed out that we need
cheap power in our State in order to de¬
velop industry there, and that that was
the way to do it.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I am
an advocate of cheap power. I want
cheap power; but I do not want to rob
and destroy private companies in order
to get it.
If the Congress is willing to arrange
for proper, fair, and reasonable prices to
the private companies for their prop¬
erties, I should be willing to join in such
a proposal. But if the Senator from
Montana means that he would have so-
called cheap power at the expense of
those who are carrying the watered
stock in his State, I cannot go along
with him.
Unless the Senator has a further ques¬
tion, I yield the floor.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am
sure the Senator from Connecticut does
not approve of the policy of watering
stock up to double the amount of the
capital invested, and then claiming the
right to earn returns on that basis.
Mr. MALONEY. Of course, I do not.
The Senator understands that, I am
sure. I helped to write the Truth in
Securities Act, back in 1933, and sup¬
ported it vigorously.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, that is
all I wish to see done. I do not wish to
prevent any corporation from receiving
proper returns on its investment; but I
do not believe such corporations have a
right to water their stock, as In the case
of the Montana power interests, which
are the subject of an article which ap¬
peared in Harper’s Magazine a short
time ago. The article was written by
Joseph Kinsey Howard. In the article
he discusses the whole problem.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I con¬
demn the abuse of watering stock by
private companies. I think the means
of correction in the situation which he
describes are reposed in the Senator’s
State. But it seems to me that he is
willing to have the Federal Government
operate under a watered stock plan in
competition with the private companies.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in
order to remedy the situation in the
State of Montana we would have, first, to
remedy the situation now existing among
the newspapers in the State. We would
have to get rid of 90 percent of the
newspapers, which are owned, operated,
and conducted entirely for the purpose of
maintaining the situation about which
I have spoken. Of course, frequently
persons are elected as members of the
State power commission who are backed
up and supported by those newspapers,
and we find that very little is done to
remedy the situation. In order to
remedy the situation it is necessary to
go av'ay back.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to say
that the Senator from Montana seems
to have quite a problem on his hands.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes; it is a big prob¬
lem.
Mr. MALONEY. It may be necessary
for him to get at it in this roundabout
way, but I must part company with him
on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Con¬
necticut to the committee amendment
as amended, the so-called Bailey amend¬
ment.
Mr. BAILEY. I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names;
Aiken
Austin
Bailey
Ball
Bankhead
Barkley
Bilbo
Brooks
Burton
Bushfield
Butler
Byrd
Capper
Caraway
Chandler
Clark, Mo,
Connally
Cordon
Davis
Downey
Ellender
Fergusoa
George
Gerry
Gillette
Green
Guffey
Gurney
Hatch
Hayden
Hill
Jenner
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Kilgore
La Pollette
Danger
Lucas
McClellan
McFarland
McKellar.
Maloney '
Maybank
Mead
Mllllkln
Murray
Nye
O'Daniel
O’Mahoney
Overton
Pepper 4
Radcllffe |
Bevercomb l
Reynolds f
Robertson |
Russell '
Shlpstead
Taft
Thomas. Idaho
Thomas, Okla.
Tunnell
Tydlngs
Vandenberg
Walsh, Mass.
Weeks
Wheeler
Wherry
White
Wiley
WUlls
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy
Senators having answered to their
names, a quorum is present.
The question is on the so-called Ma¬
loney amendment to the committee
amendment as amended. The clerk will
call the roll.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, a par¬
liamentary inquiry. Have the yeas and
nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Appar¬
ently the Chair is in error. The yeas
and nays have not been ordered. The
question is on the so-called Maloney
amendment to the committee amend¬
ment as amended.
Mr. DANGER. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the
demand for the yeas and nays seconded?
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, is the
vote about to be taken on the Maloney
amendment to the committee amend¬
ment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the
Maloney amendment to the committee
amendment as amended. On that ques¬
tion the Senator from North Dakota has
demanded the yeas and nays. Is the de¬
mand seconded?
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the so-called
Maloney amendment to the committee
amendment as amended.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry. It still is not
clear whether we are voting on the Ma¬
loney amendment or the Maloney
amendment and the Bailey amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the so-called Maloney
amendment to the committee amend¬
ment as amended.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. The vote is on that
question only?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. That is to add the
Maloney amendment to the Bailey
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. Will the Chair have
stated the Maloney amendment so that
the question may be clearly understood?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment offered
by the Senator from Connecticut to the
amendment of the committee as
amended.
The Chief Clerk. On page 3, line 8, of
the printed committee amendment as
modified inserting section 5, it is proposed
to strike out the words “demanded or
purchased within 3 years after”, so that
as amended the proviso would read:
Provided, That unless 90 percent of the firm
power produced at such projects shall be pur¬
chased upon completion of the construction
of such projects, the Secretary of the In¬
terior is authorized to construct transmis¬
sion lines for the purpose of selling such
power at wholesaie.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the so-called
Maloney amendment to the amendment
of the committee as amended.
No. 162 - 3
8488
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 24
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question recurs on the committee
amendment as amended. Upon that
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, I
should like to state briefly the reasons
which compel me to vote against the
so-called Bailey amendment as modi¬
fied. It seems to me that the inevitable
effect of the amendment would be to
give tremendous advantage to the pri¬
vate power companies in bidding for the
power to be generated as a result of the
expenditure of public money for flood-
control dams. Those who were in the
Senate during the time the Muscle
Shoals project was in operation, before
the establishment of the T. V. A., will
remember the exceedingly great advan¬
tage which the private power companies
enjoyed. Because they had their
transmission lines at the ,dam site, they
were enabled to purchase great quan¬
tities of power at ridiculously low rates
because they were the sole bidders for
the power.
It seems to me fallacious to contend
that the effect of this amendment would
be to enhance the economic feasibility
and soundness of these flood-control
dams, because, if the Secretary of the
Interior is denied the power, which he
now has the right to exercise, to build
transmission lines, in many instances, if
not in nearly all instances, the private
power company wiil either have built
transmission lines to the site of the dams
during the course of construction or they
will have built them when construction
has been completed and they will thus
be in a position to bargain for the power
generated at the dams at a tremendous
advantage to themselves.
The provision in the amendment to
the effect that the sales shall provide
that all savings realized by the pur¬
chaser shall be passed on under Federal
regulation applies only in States where
there is no State regulation, and, there¬
fore, in nearly every State with which I
am at all familiar the stipulation that
the savings in power costs shall be
passed on to the ultimate consumer will
be ineffective.
Therefore it comes down to a naked
proposition as to whether we want to
repeat the mistakes which we have made
in the past and to permit private power
companies in most instances to buy the
power at their own price. I do not be¬
lieve, Mr. President, that it is sound
public policy, when we are spending
public money for the purpose of flood
control and incidentally for the develop¬
ment of power, to permit private inter¬
ests to have an undue advantage over
public bodies in the purchase of the
power. That, as I see it, is the naked
proposition that is before the Senate in
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the committee
amendment as amended. On that ques¬
tion the yeas and nays have been or¬
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr.
President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Ml'. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Is the
vote about to occur on the so-called
Bailey amendment as amended?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct. It was amended by
the adoption of the so-called Maloney
amendment and the Bankhead amend¬
ment.
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr.
President, before the vote is had I de¬
sire to submit the reasons why I am sup¬
porting the amendment.
The amendment attempts to set forth,
in outline at least, a broad policy for the
disposition of electrical energy de¬
veloped by Government-constructed and
Government-managed and operated hy¬
droelectric plants. The bill itself pro¬
poses to approve and extend the hereto¬
fore adopted policy and program for the
construction of multiple purpose dams
and reservoirs. As I understand them,
the purposes of such dams and reservoirs
are as follows:
First, for flood control; second, for
power development; third, for irrigation;
fourth, for navigation; and, fifth, for
recreation.
Under the present organization of the
.Senate I am a member of the Commit¬
tee on Appropriations and as a member
of such committee I have been assigned
as chairman of the Subcommittee on
War Department Appropriations. This
subcommittee handles two bills annu¬
ally, one the bill making appropriations
for the Regular Military Establishment
and the other the bill providing for funds
for the nonmilitary activities of the War
Department, which bill is known ' the
civil-functions bill.
The civil-functions bill carries money,
for the nonmilitary activities of the War
Department, such as the construction
of flood-control dams, flood-control
levees, ditches, the Panama Canal, and
things of that character. It is this bill
which provides funds for the construc¬
tion of many if not most of our hydro¬
electric developments. It is my posi¬
tion on this committee that causes me
to have an unusual interest in the pend¬
ing amendment.
Mr. President, I favor the construc¬
tion of flood-control dams, and where
power may be developed as an incident
to flood control, then I favor the de-
velpment of such power. The pending
amendment brings out into the open a
fight which has been going on for years,
a fight for the development of public
power as against the development of
power by private companies. It has
been my experience that many projects
for the development of public power
have been opposed by private power in¬
terests. The public power project at
Muscle Shoals was started during World
War No. 1, I am advised, and was
abandoned with the end of that war.' It
took a great depression to bring about
conditions under which it could be com¬
pleted and made available and ready for
the manufacture of power.
Every proposed dam having power
possibilities is objected to by private
power interests, and from their stand¬
point and their interest I can under¬
stand why they have their objections.
If the Federal Government adopts a
policy of constructing public power
projects, and then goes further and
adopts a second policy of distributing
the power so developed to consumers at
rates having no relation either to the
cost of the development of such power
or the cost of distribution, then many
private power concerns v/ill be forced
out of business. If this should happen,
then two definite results would follow,
in my opinion. First, the local govern¬
ment, the State government, and the
Federal Government would lose taxes
now being collected. It is my opinion
that at this time we cannot afford to
lose any of our sources of taxation for
the support of our several State and
local governments, and the National
Government itself. A second possible
effect would be to destroy the value of a
vast amount of securities now held by
the people of our country.
I am interested in having developed a
plan or program under which we may
increase the development of hydro¬
electric power.
If the Government may develop the
power and then let private companies
distribute such power, then no taxes
will be lost and outstanding securities
will not be injured or destroyed.
The pending amendment proposes a
plan for such an arrangement.
In brief, this states my reason for m.y
support of the amendment. I find my¬
self already committed to the amend¬
ment in advance. On the first day of last
July I participated in the dedication of
the Denison Dam. At that time I made
a speech in connection with the exercises,
and I committed myself to the principles
set forth in the Bailey amendment. In
order that my views may be set forth
more clearly, I ask permission to make
the speech I delivered at the dedication
of the Denison Dam a part of my present
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
obection?
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
We are assembled here In the Red River
Valley, between Denison, Tex., and Durant,
Okla., on one of the great engineering works
of America, to dedicate this dam and this
vast ihland sea to the public use and service
of the present and future generations of our
great country.
I doubt if any of us here today can foresee
fully and clearly the value of this great en¬
gineering achievement.
To look at this work It appears to be a
gigantic earthen dam, embracing a power¬
house filled with complicated machinery.
In front of this mountainous dam we see
a vast expanse of water so long that we can¬
not see the other end and so wide that the
hilis on the other side fade away in the dis¬
tance.
This project is so large that it could not
have been undertaken by an Individual, or a
corporation, or a county, or a group of coun¬
ties, or by even a State or, for obvious reasops,
bur two States acting together.
It has required the cooperation of our
people, our cities, our counties, and our two
States, all working through our Federal Gov¬
ernment, to transform a dream into a reality
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
end to bring forth this development for
dedication here today.
Years ago, and on more than one occasion,
I Joined the present Speaker of the House of
Representatives, then Congressman Rayburn
of Texas, in an effort to interest the agents of
the Government in the possibilities of this
project.
It certainly did not occur to me then that
many years later I should be privileged to
assist a Speaker of the House of Representa¬
tives in dedicating this structure to the use
and service of the people.
I do not know who first suggested this proj¬
ect; however, I am in a position to know and
I am glad to testify that this great flood-con¬
trol work, this important power development,
and this great recreational area, is due to tlie
foresight, the persistent and well-directed
energy and the ability and power of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
gentleman from Texas, Sam Rayburn.
The Congress and the Administration,
making up the Government, are responsible
for this project.
After the brain child was born the Con¬
gress authorized the United States Engineers
to make a survey of this site and its pos¬
sibilities for flood control, power develop¬
ment, and recreation.
The survey was made and the project was
recommended for construction.
The Congress approved the report and
authorized the construclon of this dam,
reservoir, and power equipment.
The Chief of Engineers, General Reybold,
and his corps of able assistants stand at
the top of all our agencies and departments
of the Government.
When the Chief of Engineers makes a
recommendation it is accepted by the Con¬
gress as the last word in engineering ability
and skill.
With a favorable report the Congress pro¬
ceeded to act.
Money was appropriated to build this
work — and now in record time— here it is
ready to begin to work for the people of
this section of Oklahoma and Texas.
Why was this dam and reservoir propased,
approved, and constructed?
The answer — to assist in controlling the
damaging and disastrous floods in the Mis¬
sissippi Valley.
The Government has spent and is spend¬
ing multiplied millions in an effort to con¬
trol the floods on the Mississippi.
Until recently the approved plan of flood
control was through the construction of
levees and dikes to confine the water in its
channel.
The record shows that something more
than levees is necessary to protect the rich
bottom land on the tributaries of the Mis¬
sissippi.
Today the levee plan is being supplemented
by great dams and reservoirs constructed to
catch the water and hold it back for bene¬
ficial uses — in some cases for irrigation, in
others for the creation of power and still
others for aid in navigation.
Always a byproduct of such reservoirs Is
recreation.
Already this dam has prevented flood dam¬
age down the Red River.
Already this flood control works has paid
dividends to a vast number of people resid¬
ing between here and the Gulf of Mexico.
Today the gates will be opened, the
turbines will begin to turn and the genera¬
tors will begin to convert water power into
electrical energy to serve the war effort now
and later when the war is won to transform
this section of Oklahoma and Texas into
an industrial area.
Why do I make this prohpecy?
The answer — cheap power attracts fac¬
tories and Industry.
Let me call your attention to the fol¬
lowing facts:
The development of water power In the
Tennessee Valley has converted that section
Into a beehive of Industry.
The construction of the Bonneville and
Grand Coulee Dams on the Columbia River
in Oregon has induced capital to flow to
that area until now the Columbia River
is dotted with factories and the available
power is insufficient to supply the demand.
I have another reason for my prophecy.
Here in Oklahoma we already have the
Grand River Dam flood-control and power
project.
At this tim'e the power created by this
plant is serving the war effort.
Oklahoma electrical energy is creating
aluminum to make planes which have already
defeated Mussolini and planes which now
are playing an important part in crushing
what is left of the empires of Hitler and
Tojo.
Even the prospect of cheap power is at¬
tracting industry to Oklahoma.
At Miami, in northeastern Oklahoma, we
have a large Goodrich rubber plant almost
completed.
In a few months the war effort will be
moving forward on tires “made in Okla¬
homa.”
When the war is over Americans will ride
in cars propelled by Oklahonra gas and on
rubber tires made from Oklahoma oil and
branded, “Made in Oklahoma.”
This development is made possible by the
cheap power produced by the Grand River
hydroelectric plant.
I made this statement once before and was
challenged for its accuracy.
I now give my authority.
On May 18 Mr. T. G. Graham, vice presi¬
dent of the B. F. Goodrich Co., of Akron,
Ohio, made a speech, in which he said :
“Water and power are two of the funda¬
mental requirements for rubber manufactur¬
ing. When these factors were weighed, the
lack of adequate water supply eliminated all
but 26 locations, and power checked off all
but 3 of these remaining, 1 of which was
Miami.”
Here in southern Oklahoma and northern
Texas we have the water and the power, and
nothing now can keep this section from in¬
dustrial development save the limits on the
amoimt of power that can be produced.
This statement leads up to another ques¬
tion, How will this power be distributed?
Public power, as a rule, is produced as a
byproduct of flood-control developments.
The Government should not, in my Judg¬
ment, enter the fleld of power development
in such a manner as to destroy the value of
existing power facilities which have served
and are serving the wants and needs of the
people.
It seems to. m'e that a cooperative plan of
power development and distribution may be
worked out whereby the people in the cities
and on the farms may receive the benefits of
power at reasonable rates.
Such a plan should embrace a program
wherein the Government may create the
electrical energy and the existing distribut¬
ing systems may take the current at the
point of manufacture, and thereby both the
Government and the existing systems may
profit by such cooperative plan of operation.
Former Senator James P. Pope, now a
director of the Tennessee Valley Authority,
has Just made the following statement:
“There is no doubt but that this coopera¬
tive effort, which makes for efSciency, econ¬
omy, and better service, is here to stay and
will play an increasingly Important part In
the future development of the public and
private power Industry.”
Unless this policy is adopted, the Govern¬
ment will be forced to build stand-by steam
plants and, in addition, will have to build
transmission and distributing lines in order
to deliver the electricity to the consumers.
8489
The Government is interested in making a
success of its flood-control and power devel¬
opments.
The public is Interested in securing elec¬
tricity at a reasonable price.
These two interests can be harmonized
and adjusted to the benefit of both the
Government and the consumers.
This is one of the problems that must be
solved, and when it is solved it must take
into consideration the injury done by re¬
moving property from taxation, and then it
must give credit to the values which may be
created as the direct result of the making
available of an abundance of cheap power.
In conclusion, we now see this great dam
and reservoir in the rough. Very soon we
shall see it in action.
Later we shall see the results of this de¬
velopment.
This great reservoir wUl be landscaped and
parked for the benefit of the public. Recrea¬
tional areas wUl dot the lakesldes.
Industries will locate in the adjacent towns
and cities.
This section will be a mecca for the mil¬
lions of vacationists residing within easy
driving distance.
The Government should locate and main¬
tain here a major naval training station.
Should the people want and demand it,
the Red River may be made navigable from
this dam to the Mississippi, thence on to the
Gulf and to the sea.
This would give us cheaper freight rates
and would insure industries to the limit of
available power.
If the public and private power could be
fully integrated, then there need be no limit
to the power available.
With navigation provided to the dam, it
would be comparatively inexpensive to create
a system of locks whereby ships and barges
might sail from cities and towns adjacent to
the lake carrying out in commerce the raw
products of Okiahoma and Texas and bring¬
ing back the finished products which Okla¬
homa and Texas need.
My friends, this vision is not as wild today
as was the proposal years ago to build this
work at a cost of over $50,000,000.
Oklahoma and Texas form an economic
empire.
Our Governors and our representatives in
Congress are working together.
Through this cooperation, there is no limit
to the development of our great States of
Oklahoma and Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the committee
amendment as amended, which will be
stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 4, after
line 13, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing:
Sec. 5. Electric power and energy generated
at reservoir projects under the control of the
War Department and in the opinion of the
Secretary of War not required in the opera¬
tion of such projects shall be delivered to the
Secretary of the Interior, who shall transmit
and dispose of such power and energy in such
manner as to encourage the most widespread
use thereof at the lowest possible rates to
consumers consistent with sound business
principles, the rate schedules to become effec¬
tive upon confirmation and approval by the
Federal Power Commission. Preference in
the sale of such power and energy shall be
given to public bodies and cooperatives. The
sale of such electric power as may be gen¬
erated at reservoir projects shall be made at
the point of production, without special
privilege or discrimination, so as to provide
for the complete coordination of such power
and energy with other power developments,
both private and public, in the area con¬
tiguous with such projects. It shall be stip¬
ulated in. connection with any sale that any
8490
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 24
and all savings realized by the purchasers
shall he passed on under Federal regulation
where no State regulation exists, to the con¬
suming public: Provided, That unless 90 per¬
cent of the firm power produced at such
projects shall be purchased upon comple¬
tion of construction of such projects, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to con¬
struct transmission lines for the purpose of
selling such power at wholesale: Provided
further, That nothing herein shall prohibit
the building of such transmission lines by
the Federal Government or the Secretary of
the Interior with Federal funds to supply
rural electric associations organized for the
purpose of supplying electric energy to rural
districts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
yeas and nays having been ordered, the
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. WHITE (when Mr. Hawkes’ name
was called). I announce the unavoid¬
able absence of the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. Hawkes]. I may add that
if he were present he would vote “yea.”
Mr. WHITE (when Mr. Moore’s name
was called). I announce the unavoid¬
able absence of the Senator from Okla¬
homa [Mr. Moore], and will state that
If he were present he would vote “yea.”
The roll call was concluded.
Mr. HILL. I announce that the Sen¬
ator from Virginia [Mr. Glass] is ab¬
sent from the Senate because of illness.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Chavez] and the Senator from Tennessee
[Mr. Stewart] are absent because of ill¬
ness in their families.
The Senators %om Nevada [Mr. Mc-
<^RRAN and Mr. sSrugham ] and the Sen¬
ator from Utah [Mr. Murdock] are de¬
tained on official business for the Senate.
The Senator from Florida [Mr. An¬
drews], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.
Clark], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. Eastland], the Senator from Loui¬
siana [Mr. Overton], the Senator from
Utah [Mr. Thomas], the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. Truman], the Senator
from New York [Mr. Wagner], the Sen¬
ator from Washington [Mr. Wallgren]
and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
Walsh] are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Thomas]
has a general pair with the Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. Bridges]. I am
advised that if present and voting, the
Senator from Utah would vote “nay,”
and the Senator from New Hampshire
would vote “yea.”
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr,
Stewart] is paired with the Senator
from Oregon [Mr. Holman] ; the Sena¬
tor from New York [Mr. Wagner] is
paired with the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. Reed] ; and the Senator from Mis¬
sissippi [Mr. Eastland] is paired with
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
Moore]. I am advised that if present
and voting, the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr, Eastland] would vote “nay,” and
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
Moore] would vote “yea.”
Mr. W.HERRY. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
Bridges] has a general pair with the Sen¬
ator from Utah [Mr. Thomas]. I am ad¬
vised that if present and voting, the Sen¬
ator from New Hampshire would vote
“yea.”
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Danaher] is absent because of important
public business. I am advised that if
present, he would vote “yea.”
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hol¬
man], who is absent because of illness in
his family, has a general pair with the
Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Stewart].
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
Moore], who is necessarily absent, has
a pair on this question with the Senator
from Mississippi [Mr. Eastland]. If the
Senator from Oklahoma were present, he
would vote “yea.” I am advised that if
present and voting, the Senator from
Mississippi would vote “nay.”
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Reed]
has a general pair with the Senator from
New York [Mr. Wagner].
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr,
Tobey], the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
Buck], the Senator from Maine [Mr.
Brewster] and the Senator from Iowa
[Mr. Wilson] are necessarily absent.
The result was announced — yeas 27,
nays 42, as follows:
YEAS— 27
Austin
Gerry
Taft
Bailey
Gurney
Thomas, Idaho
Bankhead
Jenner
Thomas, Okla.
Brooks
Maloney
Tydlngs
Burton
Mllllkin
Vandenberg
Bushfield
O’Danlel
Weeks
Byrd
Radcllfle
White
Clark, Mo.
Revercomb
Wiley
George
Reynolds
NAYS— 42
WUlls
Aiken
Gillette
McKellar
Ball
Green
Maybank
Barkley
Guffey
Mead
BUbo
Hatch
Murray
Butler
Hayden
Nye
Capper
Hill
O’Mahoney
Caraway
Johnson, Calif.
Pepper
Chandler
Johnson, Colo.
Robertson
Connally
Kilgore
Russell
Cordon
La Follette
Shlpstead
Davis
Danger
Tunnell
Downey
Lucas
Walsh, Mass.
Ellender
McClellan
Wheeler
Ferguson
McFarland
Wherry
NOT VOTING—
■25
Andrews
Hawkes
Thomas, Utah
Brewster
Holman
Tobey
Bridges
McCarran
Truman
Buck
Moore
Wagner
Chavez
Murdock
Wallgren
Clark, Idaho
Overton
Walsh, N. J.
Danaher
Reed
Wilson
Eastland
Scrugham
Glass
Stewart
So the
committee amendment, as
amended, was rejected.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I de¬
sire now to offer the amendment as it
was originally proposed by the Commit¬
tee on Commerce. This amendment, I
understand, meets with the approval of
the Secretary of the Interior. I send
the amendment to the desk and ask that
it be read. I do not think it needs any
discussion so far as I am concerned. It
has been thoroughly explained over and
over again.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend¬
ment will be read.
The Chief Clerk. On page 4, begin¬
ning with line 14, It is proposed to insert
the following:
Sec. 5. Electric power and energy gener¬
ated at reservoir projects under the control
of the War Department and. In the opinion
of the Secretary of War, not required In the
operation of such projects shall be delivered
to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall
transmit and dispose of such power and
energy in such manner as to encourage the
most widespread use thereof at the lowest
possible rates to consumer consistent with
sound business principles, the rate schedules
to become effective upon confirmation and
approval by the Federal Power Commission.
Preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives. The Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to construct and acquire only
such transmission lines and related facilities
as may be necessary in order to make the
power and energy generated at said projects
available in wholesale quantities for sale on
fair and reasonable terms and conditions to
facilities owned by the Federal Government,
public bodies, cooperatives, and privately
owned companies.
The PRESIDING^ OFFICER (Mr.
Lucas in the chair) . ' The question is on
agreeing to the amendment to the com¬
mittee amendment offered by the Sena¬
tor from Louisiana.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, I
have an amendment on the desk which
f offer as an amendment to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from
Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be read.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, at the
end of line 7, it is proposed to add the
following :
It shall be stipulated In connection with
any sale that any and all savings realized by
the purchasers shall be passed on under
Federal regulation where no State regulation
exists, to the consuming public.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, in
discussing the Bailey amendment last
Wednesday I made reference to this pro¬
vision of that amendment and, stated at
the time that I considered offering it as
an amendment to the original commit¬
tee amendment, that is, the one now of¬
fered by the Senator from Louisiana. I
stated at that time my reasons why I felt
that this provision should be a part of
the flood-control bill and the policy pro¬
visions of this measure. I do not deem
it necessary to discuss it. I believe that
all benefits resulting from the sale of
power which come from Government-
built facilities such as power dams or
flood-control dams should be passed on
to the consuming public. I do not know
whether this provision is wholly adequate
to accomplish that purpose, but I do not
believe in making any contract for the
power with a private utility at a low
rate for the wholesale price without
some provision being in the contract
whereby the benefits of the cheap power
will be passed on to the ultimate con¬
sumers.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator state briefly the burden of his
amendment?
Mr. McClellan. As I have said, I
take no credit for the authorship of the
amendment. I took this provision from
the Bailey amendment. The amend¬
ment provides that in all contracts made
for the sale of power it shall be stipu¬
lated that the benefits therefrom shall
be passed on to the ultimate consumer.
This is the condition which I think it
covers: We assume that the Govern¬
ment in these hydroelectric dams can
generate power at a much cheaper cost
than a private utility can, and can afford
to sell it to cooperatives and to a private
utility at the same rate. If it Is pro-
1944
8491
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
duced cheaper and the private power
company makes a contract for it on a
cheaper basis than it can itself produce
it, that benefit should be passed on to
the consumer and not go as an addi¬
tional profit or an increased profit to the
private utility. That is what I think the
provision would accomplish. If the law
were strictly followed, that is if the pur¬
pose and intent of the amendment were
followed, in the administration of the
law, I think it would inure ultimately to
the benefit of the actual consumer.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. RUSSELL. Just how would this
benefit reach the consumer? As I read
the amendment it provides that it shall
not be done except in cases where there
is no State regulation. I think nearly
every one of the States has some regu¬
latory body.
Mr. McClellan. That may be true,
and we probably could not usurp the au¬
thority of the State, but it certainly
would express the intent on the part of
Congress that the consumer should re¬
ceive the ultimate benefit of this cheap
power. It would at least express our in¬
tent that the law should be administered
in that way.
Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. WHEELER. I will say frankly
that it seems to me that in order that
the ultimate consumer may obtain the
benefit which the Senator seeks to give
him by this provision, there should be
stricken from the amendment the words
“under Federal regulation where no
State regulation exists,” and simply say,
“and all savings realized by the pur¬
chasers shall be passed on to the con¬
suming public.”
Let me say that in some States there
may exist a State body which instead of
regulating the power companies is regu¬
lated by the power companies. Where
the Government is furnishing cheaper
power the general public should receive
the benefit of such cheaper power. I
should be delighted to support the
amendment if the Senator would strike
out the language “under Federal regula¬
tion where no State regulation exists,”
so the provision would be, “and all sav¬
ings realized by the purchaser shall be
passed on to the consuming public.”
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Montana will permit me,
why not leave in the words “under Fed¬
eral regulation” and strike out the re¬
mainder of the sentence?
Mr. WHEELER. I have no objection
to leaving it under Federal regulation:
but ce;rtainly the language “where no
State regulation exists” should be elim¬
inated, so as to read:
It shall be stipulated in connection with
any sale that any and all savings realized
by the purchasers shall be passed on under
Federal regulation to the consuming public.
Let me say to the Senator that my
attention was called by the Bureau to
a case involving one of the power com¬
panies in eastern Montana. Some of the
people there were able to get a much
better rate by reason ^ the fact that
the Bureau made the power company
give a cheaper rate than was allowed
by the State regulatory body. This was
made possible because of the cheap power
which the power company was getting
from the Government. Otherwise, in
connection with some of the projects, the
power companies or municipalities may
buy their power from the Federal Gov¬
ernment at a very low rate, but when
they come to sell it to the consuming
public, they may charge a much higher
price, and make a great deal of profit
by reason of the low price of the power
obtained from the Government. I be¬
lieve that the general public ought to
have the benefit of cheap prices for
power. I feel that the only way we can
make sure that the general public ob¬
tains the benefit is by doing as I have
SU^^6St6Ci
Mr. McClellan. That is the goal to
which I am driving. My amendment
may not be wholly adequate to accom¬
plish the desired result.
Mr. WHEELER. I believe that the
Senator’s amendment would accomplish
the desired result if the words “where
no State regulation exists” were stricken
out, so that the language would read:
It shall be stipulated in connection with
any sale that any and all savings realized
by the purchasers shall be passed on under
Federal regulation to the consuming public.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield? _
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Lucas in the chair) . Does the Senator
from Arkansas yield to the Senator from
Montana?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. Without striking out
that wording, the result might be that
the State regulatory body might permit
higher rates. Some of the rates already
established may be higher than would be
justified, and those higher rates would be
permitted to obtain in the case of power
purchased at very low rates from the
public power projects. It seems to me
that if the Senator were to strike out
that wording he would get substantial
support for his amendment.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I shall be glad to
yield to the Senator in a moment.
It is not my purpose, Mr. President, to
sponsor any amendment which would
usurp the power of the State regulatory
bodies to fix rates generally; but I do
wish to see in the Federal law a protec¬
tion against profiteering from the sale of
power. The real benefits should go to
the ultimate consumers. If it is neces¬
sary to modify the amendment to attain
that objective, I have no objection to
modifying the amendment to that extent.
I now yield to the Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I am
indeed pleased to know that the Senator
is willing to modify his amendment. At
some time later in the day I wish to read
some correspondence between William J.
Neal, Deputy Administrator of the Rural
Electrification Administration, and my¬
self in connection with the matter now
under consideration. The substance of
it shows that in connection with a $45,-
000,000 power plant built in South Caro¬
lina with Federal aid, in many instances
power is now being sold at 4 mills to
the power companies because of lack of
ability to obtain priorities from the War
Production Board for the construction of
transmission lines. The power from that
dam, which is sold at 4 mills, was made
possible by the Congress of the United
States. It is carried only a few miles,
and the power company resells it to farm
cooperatives for 12 mills, or three times
the price paid for the power.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I shall be glad to
yield in a moment. I should like to make
a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator will state it.
Mr. McClellan, is there a limita¬
tion of time in the discussion of this
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
no limitation of time in the discussion of
this amendment.
Mr. McClellan. I thank the Chair.
I now yield to the Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. LANGER. How are the savings
mentioned by the Senator to be deter¬
mined, and who is to determine them?
Mr. McClellan. I assume that the
contracting agent for the Government,
the Secretary of the Interior, would write
into the contract a provision which would
protect the consuming public. This
amendment is designed to give him that
power.
Mr. LANGER. Suppose a transmis¬
sion line were built; how would the sav¬
ings be determined?
Mr. McClellan. I believe that this
provision would apply primarily to the
private utilities and possibly public bodies
which purchase power. Certainly they
are now free to negotiate with the co¬
operatives and others, to give them the
benefit of cheap power. But when power
is sold to a private utility which already
has established rates, if its cost of pro¬
duction is 4 cents a kilowatt, and it is
able to buy power at the Government
power dam for 2 cents a kilowatt, that
represents a profit which should be
passed on to the consumer and should
not be permitted to be retained by the
power company.
Mr. LANGER. I understand that;
but when a dam is built, how are the
savings to be determined, and who is to
determine them?
Mr. McClellan. I think the Fed¬
eral Power Commission would have jur¬
isdiction in determining what a fair rate
would be. It would be consulted. Under
the provisions of this amendment any
rates established must be approved by
the Federal Power Commission.
Mr. LANGER. As I understand, the '
rate to be fixed would take cognizance of
any so-called savings.
Mr. McClellan. We could refuse to
contract with the private utility until
such time as it satisfies us that it is
passing on the benefits to the consumers.
Mr. LANGER. In other words, that
the rates would be lowered.
8492
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 24
Mr. McClellan. Yes. I think we
could do that. With this provision in
the law, I do not believe that the Sec¬
retary of the Interior would be required
to make a contract with a private utility
until it met the provisions of the law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent to modify the amendment which I
have offered, by striking out the words
“where no State regulation exists.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator does not require unanimous
consent. The amendment is modified
accordingly.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. I merely wish to call
attention to the fact that the amend¬
ment as it now stands provides that the
Secretary of the Interior, in disposing
of the power which will be generated at
these dams, “shall transmit and dispose
of such power and energy in such man¬
ner as to encourage the most widespread
use thereof at the lowest possible rates
to consumers consistent with sound
business principles, the rate schedules to
become effective upon confirmation and
approval by the Federal Power Com¬
mission.”
That is a mandate to the Secretary of
the Interior to supply power at the
cheapest possible rate consistent with
sound business principles.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McClellan. I have finished.
I am glad to yield the floor.
Mr. OVERTON. Then I shall speak
in my own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas has quite an ap¬
peal. I am in sympathy with the prin¬
ciple and theory advanced by the
amendment. However, it has been has¬
tily prepared. It was offered on the
floor of the Senate, without any commit¬
tee study or investigation. No hearings
have been held in reference to it. I can
now conceive of reasons why perhaps it
would not operate properly, as it is now
drafted.
Let us take, for example, a private
power company, which desires to con¬
nect with a Federal dam and obtain
power at cheap rates. Assume that it
is so circumstanced that in order to do
so it must undergo certain expenses. If
every dollar of the savings realized must
be passed on to the consumers, the power
company may say, “What is the use?
We would rather not go through all the
struggle, and incur all the expense inci¬
dent to the additional operation if we
are to get no profit out of it.”
The Secretary of the Interior would
have authority under this amendment
to enter into a contract with a power
company so circumstanced, and to say
to it, “Well, your case is an unusual one,
and we are not going to exact that all
the savings you make shall be passed
on to the consumer, but we shall require
in the contract that you pass on to the
consumer 75 percent of the savings” or
“80 percent of the savings” or “90 per¬
cent of the savings.”
To another power company he would
say, “Your situation is entirely different.
This additional operation would not re¬
quire very much trouble insofar as your
company is concerned. The transmis¬
sion line would be a very short one. It
would not require much additional over¬
head expense or many additional em¬
ployees, and so forth. Therefore, we
shall require that all the savings be
passed on to the consmner before we
dispose of the power to you.”
I give those illustrations merely off¬
hand. As pointed out by the Senator
from Montana, the amendment as it
now reads expresses, I think, the correct
thought, namely, that it gives to the Sec¬
retary of the Interior the power to
“transmit and dispose of such power and
energy in such manner as to encourage
the most widespread use thereof at the
lowest possible rates to consumers con¬
sistent with sound business principles.”
Therefore, the Secretary of the In¬
terior and the experts who represent him
would negotiate with the private power
company and would make an equitable
adjustment of the amount of the savings
which should be passed on to the con¬
suming public. I do not think it should
be 100 percent in all cases. I can con¬
ceive of many cases in which it should
be less than that. Otherwise, a power
company would say, “Well, we will let it
alone; we will not take this cheaper
power.”
Furthermore, the amendment as of¬
fered provides that —
The Secretary of the Interior • • •
shall ♦ • • dispose of such power
* • • at the lowest possible rates to
consumers consistent with sound business
principles.
I think that thought is the one which
should predominate. But when it is
said, as does the amendment proposed
by the Senator from Arkansas —
It shall be stipulated in connection with
any sale that any and all savings realized
by the purchasers shall be passed on under
Federal regulation, where no State regulation
exists, to the consuming public.
Then I ask: What Federal regulation?
What Federal authority is going to
make that regulation? That is not
stipulated in the amendment proposed
by the Senator from Arkansas. Before
the Senate acts on an amendment of this
character, I think it should be subjected
to the scrutiny of the Department of
the Interior and hearings should be
held on it, so that we could have pre¬
pared a suitable and appropriate amend¬
ment which would meet an objective
which I am sure practically every Sena¬
tor would like to have achieved.
Mr. McClellan. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. McClellan. I should like to ask
the Senator whether the amendment
which I have offered in connection with
the Bailey amendment was not con¬
sidered by the committee and recom¬
mended for adoption.
Mr. OVERTON. There was no evi¬
dence at all; no hearings were held on it.
Mr. McClellan. No; but the com¬
mittee considered the Bailey amend¬
ment and recommended its adoption,
and this provision was contained in the
Bailey amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. That is perfectly
true.
Mr. McClellan. So the committee
has considered it.
Mr. OVERTON. I did not say the
committee had not considered it. I said
there were no hearings and it was not
submitted to the Department of the
Interior.
I think an amendment of this sort
should be formulated after consultation
with experts and those familiar with the
disposition of power through a public
agency before the Senate undertakes to
adopt it.
The amendment proposed by me, if
adopted, will go to conference: and if in
conference, after consultation with the
Department of the Interior, something
can be worked out which would carry out
this very laudable purpose, so far as I
am concerned, speaking for myself, I
should be very happy, indeed, to vote for
its inclusion.
But I think this hastily drafted amend¬
ment should not be adopted by the Sen-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment, as modified, offered by the Sena¬
tor from Arkansas [Mr. McClellan].
The amendment as modified was re¬
jected.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, many
Senators have asked me about the pro¬
gram relative to the holding of a session
tomorrow. I am anxious to get along
with legislation as rapidly as possible.
We have been in session nearly 2 weeks,
but we have not yet done anything. If
we are to wind up the last ends of busi¬
ness which remains to be disposed of at
this session, or which should be disposed
of, we must make some speed.
Nevertheless, I realize how difficult it
is to make any headway on Saturday,
If the amendments which are contem¬
plated are offered — one by the Senator
from Wyoming, and possibly others,
which will be controversial — I doubt
whether we can finish consideration of
the bill today, although from day to day
I have been joining with the Senator
from Louisiana in hoping that we could
finish its consideration on that particular
day. But here we are.
What is the Senator’s idea about at¬
tempting to hold a session tomorrow?
Mr. OVERTON. Frankly, Mr. Presi¬
dent, I do not think there is any possi¬
bility of completing consideration of the
bill today. I think there might be an
opportunity to complete its consideration
on Saturday if we could get proper at¬
tendance here.
Mr. BARKLEY, That is always the
problem.
Mr. OVERTON. But I know the diffi¬
culty which lies in the way of securing
the attendance of a quorum on a Satur¬
day.
I am perfectly willing to yield to the
better and more trained and experienced
judgment of the majority leader.
1944 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. BARKLEY. I was not Inquiring
for the purpose of bringing today’s ses¬
sion to a close now, but in order that
I might advise Senators as to the prob¬
abilities of a session tomorrow.
In that connection, I wonder whether
it would be possible to secure a limita¬
tion on debate on the bill and the amend¬
ments which will be offered, beginning
with the next session.
Mr. OVERTON. I doubt whether it
would be exactly the proper thing to
secure a limitation on debate on the
O’Mahoney amendment, because it is
rather involved and intricate, and I
think we will find some diiBculty with it.
Mr. BARKLEY. I am not pressing the
matter. I am simply attempting to feel
out the situation.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BARKLEY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. If the Sen¬
ator from Vermont [Mr. Aiken] is going
to offer the amendment which it has
been indicated he will offer, namely the
St. Lawrence waterway amendment, I
can say to the Senator from Kentucky
that I intend to speak indefinitely on
that subject.
Mr. BARKLEY. I was afraid of that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. In other
words, I would not be willing to agree
to any arrangement about amendments
which would put a limitation on debate
on the St. Lawrence waterway amend¬
ment.
Mr. BARKLEY. I have been confer¬
ring with the Senator from Vermont
about his intention of offering that
amendment to the pending bill. He has
previously indicated his intention to
offer it to the river and harbor bill, not
to the pending bill. The result of my
conference with him is that he himself
has not yet decided which he will do.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Yesterday
the Senator from Vermont told me that
he did not know to which bill he would
offer his amendment. I can say to the
Senator from Kentucky that I not 'only
know several different ways of speaking
on a bill, but I know several different
ways of offering amendments to a bill.
Mr. BARKLEY. The Senator does not
have to remind me of his skill in that
regard.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. In other
words, I am reserving every right I pos¬
sibly have on the St. Lawrence waterway.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I sug¬
gest that we beat the devil tomorrow,
when we meet him. But I hope we do not
meet the devil.
Mr. BARKLEY. We would not have
to travel very far to get on his tracks.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Louisiana yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. I understood the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana to say that in his
opinion there was no prospect of passing
the pending bill this afternoon.
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator is cor¬
rect in his understanding.
Mr. WHITE. I completely concur in
the view expressed by the Senator from
Louisiana. I hope that no effort will be
made to hold a session tomorrow, which
will be Saturday. Senators do not waste
their time on Saturdays, even though the
Senate be not in session. Saturday
affords an opportunity, which all Sen¬
ators need, I believe, of clearing up cor¬
respondence and other matters which
reach their desks during the week. If
we hold a session of the Senate on Satur¬
day we will find it increasingly difficult
in the days of the coming week to keep
Members on the floor of the Senate at¬
tending to legislative tasks. While I
concur in the statement of the Senator
that the pending bill cannot be passed
this afternoon, I dare express the hope
to him, and to the distinguished majority
leader, that no effort will be made to hold
a session tomorrow,
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Louisiana yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. BARKLEY. I thank the Senator
from Maine, and all other Senators, for
their suggestions, which clear the atmos¬
phere sufficiently for me to announce
that we will not be in position to finish
consideration of the pending bill today,
and that we will not hold a session of
the Senate tomorrow. Having made
that statement, Senators may govern
themselves accordingly.
I wish to say further, Mr. President,
that certain legislation must be acted
upon before this Congress expires. I
have reference to legislation providing
for the extension of certain war powers.
It may be necessary to ask that the pend¬
ing bill be laid aside in order that we
may consider legislation for the exten¬
sion of certain war powers which would
otherwise expire on the 31st of December.
I hope that we may dispose of the pend¬
ing bill promptly enough to make it un¬
necessary to lay it aside in order to take
up the other matters to which I have
referred.
Mr. OVERTON. I think that question
can be taken up when there is necessity
for it being considered.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par¬
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. WHERRY. Will the Chair state
what is the business now pending before
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Louisi¬
ana on behalf of the committee.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Louisiana yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. BANKHEAD. With reference to
the matters appearing on the calendar
or to which an agreement has been
reached, it is evident that it will be diffi¬
cult to take them up and pass them
before a majority of the Members of the
Senate go home for the holidays and we
would have difficulty in developing a
quorum. In order that we make all the
progress we can, I wish to ask the Sen¬
ator from Kentucky if he believes it
would be possible to get an agreement
now, at the end of a week’s debate on the
pending flood-control bill, relative to a
time for voting on it.
Mr. BARKLEY. Personally, I should
be glad to enter into such an agreement.
8493
but I doubt whether it would be possible
to reach an agreement of that nature
at this time. I doubt whether Senators
would now agree on a time to vote on the
bill. Such an agreement would probably
depend upon the character of amend¬
ments to be offered. I hope that no diffi¬
culty will be encountered in completing
consideration of the pending bill and also
the river-and-harbor bill by the end of
next week. I doubt whether we could
now reach an agreement to vote on the
final passage of the pending bill on any
date next week.
Mr. OVERTON, I believe that by next
Monday we might be in position tq reach
such an agreement. It might not be
possible to reach it early in the day,
but I think it could be reached later in
the day.
Mr. BARKLEY. Possibly we could
reach an agreement later, but the Sena¬
tor asked me if we could do it today, and
I doubt it.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not
see any need of attempting to speed the
pending bill through Congress without
affording opportunity for an adequate
discussion of it. I think the pending bill
is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that can be brought before
the Senate. I certainly will not agree to
any limitation in the time to be allowed
in presenting the proper views which I
have in connection with the matter. I
intend to bring up the Missouri Valley
Authority amendment and have it con¬
sidered in connection with the pending
bill.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, when
the Senator does that, if the Chair will
give me recognition, I will move to lay it
on the table.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, that
would not prevent me from discussing
the matter. I intend to bi'ing forward
the Missouri Valley Authority amend¬
ment and have the Senate understand
what it is, and also point out to Members
of the Senate what the effect of the pro¬
posed legislation would be on the coun¬
try.
The entire purpose of the effort to
speed the pending bill through Congress
is to prevent the country from having
the Missouri Valley Authority established
in the West. The Missouri Valley Au¬
thority is absolutely necessary to the in¬
terests and welfare of the people in my
section. I will not consent to any limi¬
tation of time in debate upon the present
measure.
Mr. BARKLEY and other Senators ad¬
dressed the Chair.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I have
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator from Louisiana has the floor. Does
he wish to yield; and if so, to whom?
Mr. OVERTON. I will not yield to
anyone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, when
I stated that I would move to lay the
Missouri Valley Authority amendment on
the table in the event it should be of¬
fered by the Senator from Montana, I did
so for certain reasons. In theiffirst place,
the Senator from Montana has said that
8494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 24
the pending bill is being hastily railroad¬
ed through the Congress. It was origi¬
nally introduced in the other House more
than a year ago. Hearings were held on
it for many weeks. It was passed by
the House in the early spring of this year
and sent to the Senate. Full hearings
were held on it by a Senate committee,
and everyone who had any amendment
to propose was invited to come before the
committee. I gave notice from the floor
of the Senate that hearings would be
held on the bill. I gave notice not only
once but twice'from the floor, and I also
gave notice through the press. The Sen¬
ator from Montana did not appear, nor
did anyone else appear for the purpose
of offering a Missouri Valley Authority
amendment.
After the flood-control bill and the
river and harbor bill had been reported,
the Senator from Montana submitted the
Missouri Valley Authority amendment.
He now proposes to seek to have it in¬
corporated in the flood-control bill as an
amendment without any hearing having
been held upon it by any committee,
without any testimony having been
heard, or without a report being made
upon it by any department of the Gov¬
ernment.
Mr. Pi-esident, why do I say there
should not be any discussion of the mat¬
ter? The Senator from Montana has
said that I am trying to railroad this bill
through the Congress. I reply that I
think he is making an effort to kill the
pending bill in order that there may be
no flood control bill, or river and harbor
bill, but that, instead, there will be a
grandiose Missouri Valley Authority bill
enacted next year by the Congress of the
United States.
I do not believe the Senate would be
willing to consider the amendment to
which the Senator from Montana has
referred, and vote on it if it should be
presented, without a hearing having been
held on it or testimony presented in its
support. Even those favoring the Mis¬
souri Valley Authority would like to
have some opportunity of ascertaining
whether its provisions are proper, or
whether some amendment should not be
offered to it. So, Mr. President, I do not
believe the time has come when the Sen¬
ate will legislate in any such manner as
proposed by the Senator from Montana.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. I understood the Sen¬
ator to say that the pending bill had been
the subject of very exhaustive hearings,
that the bill was carefully prepared and
studied, and that no objections had been
made to it.
Mr. OVERTON. I did not say that no
objections had been made to it.
Mr. MURRAY. Is it not a fact that
a fight has been made against this meas¬
ure because it totally ignores the irriga¬
tion rights of the States in the upper part
of the valley? Is it not true that the
Senator from Louisiana and others sup¬
porting the proposed legislation at¬
tempted to get together for the purpose
of preventing a Missouri Valley Au¬
thority, and that an agreement has been
entered into between the Department of
the Interior and Army engineers -
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator asks
me too many questions at one time. Let
me answer. No; I did not undertake to
defeat the Missouri Valley Authority by
having the Army engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation enter into any
o crvppTTI
Mr. MURRAY. Well, Mr. Presi¬
dent —
Mr. OVERTON. I ask the Senator to
wait a moment. He asked me several
questions. The other question was as to
whether there was not an irreconcilable
conflict between the lower Missouri Val¬
ley people and the upper Missouri Val¬
ley people. There Is no irreconcilable
conflict. The volume of testimony taken
upon that subject showed rather conclu¬
sively to myself, at least, and to the
junior Senator from Wyoming and the
junior Senator from Colorado that if an
opportunity were given the engineers of
the Bureau of Reclamation and the engi¬
neers of the War Department to get
together they could reconcile the differ¬
ences. They did get together, and they
filed a joint report. So there is no irre¬
concilable conflict at all, and there has
been no attempt to get any proposed
legislation for the Missouri Valley
Authority.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. Does not the joint
agreement which is supposed to have
been entered into between the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Army engineers
show on its face that the projects which
are being incorporated in and approved
by this proposed legislation have not as
yet been engineered and not worked out?
Does it not show that this is simply a
list of projects thrown together for the
purpose of making it appear that there
are projects which can be worked upon,
although they are not ready at all? The
last paragraph of the agreement says -
Mr. OVERTON. Let us stop at one
question.
Mr. MURRAY. What I am asking is
one question; it is all a part of the
question.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well.
Mr. MURRAY. The agreement itself
says:
Precise elevations and heights of reservoirs
and dams and final determinations of the
power installations required can be agreed
upon after more detailed plans and cost esti¬
mates have been obtained and compared with
benefits and after consideration has been
given to the desires and objections of persons
affected by the proposed developments.
The agreement proceeds on that very
basis.-
Mr. OVERTON. I do not yield for any
additional questions until I have an¬
swered that one.
Mr. President, the Senator from Mon¬
tana is in error when he says that only
slight consideration was given to the
projects contained in the joint report.
For years the Army engineers have
worked in the Missouri River Basin in
order to determine proper projects for
flood control and navigation and for a
number of years the expert engineers
of the Bureau of Reclamation have been
working in order to decide upon proper
projects for irrigation and local bene¬
ficial uses of water in the States com¬
prising the Missouri Basin. The testi¬
mony before my subcommittee showed
that there were really very httle dif¬
ferences between the two and that they
could probably be reconciled. They
were reconciled. But every one of those
projects has undergone careful scrutiny
by the engineers of the Bureau of Rec¬
lamation or by the Army engineers.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I merely
wish to ask the Senator a question, which
can be answered yes or no if the Sen¬
ator wishes to do so. Is it a fact that
the subcommittee of the subcommittee
of the Committee on Commerce having
to do with both flood control and the
river and harbor bill, of which' the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Louisiana is
chairman, held hearings for 5 or 6
weeks — I think for at least 6 weeks — at
which numerous Senators who were not
members of the committee attended, ex¬
amined witnesses, and presented their
side of the controversy, and is it a fact
that neither the Senatcr from Montana
[Mr. Murray] nor the Senator from
North Dakota [Mr. Langer] appeared
before the committee during that pe¬
riod to present the famous so-called
Murray-Langer amendment?
Mr. OVERTON. So far as I recall, the
Senator from Montana never made an
appearance.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I think I
attended practically every hearing of the
subcommittee. I was very much inter¬
ested in the matter.
Mr. OVERTON. The Junior Senator
from North Dakota did on one day make
a very brief appearance -
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I happened
to miss that day.
Mr. OVERTON. With respect to a
proposal in connection with his State;
that is all.
Mr. CLARK of ' Missouri. In other
words, the matter was not presented to
the subcommittee or to the full commit¬
tee of the Commerce Committee at all.
Mr. OVERTON. No; but I want to say
that some Senators from the Golden
West, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
O’Mahoney], who is not a member of
the committee, and other Senators, in¬
cluding the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Millikin], the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. Robertson], and the Senator from
Montana [Mr. Wheeler] all appeared in
a concerted effort with the committee to
try to reconcile the differences and to
undertake it in a way to present some¬
thing on which the Senate of the United
States and the House of Representatives
could act intelligently, after full and free
discussion, with the objective, Mr. Presi¬
dent, of developing the Western States.
The evidence of it confronts all Members
of the Senate who are now in the Senate
Chamber in the matter of the Missouri
Basin States. It starts at the mouth of
the Missouri River. There is the naviga¬
tion channel at Sioux City. This has
all been agreed upon, and then there are
the flood-control and navigation proj¬
ects above Sioux City, running up to the
mouth of the Yellowstone River.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8495
Those are the dams in which the engi¬
neers are most vitally interested with a
view of having flood protection and navi¬
gation and incidental irrigation. Most of
the other dams which can be seen dotted
like flyspecks over the map in the rear
of the Chamber are the dams and reser¬
voirs which the Bureau of fteclamation
has been working upon for years. They
are essentially irrigation reservoirs. A
Joint report has been submitted and the
differences have been reconciled in refer¬
ence to two or three of the dams on the
main stem of the Missouri River which
were the main point of the dispute.
Those differences having been reconciled.
It seems passing strange to me that any
Senator from the West should oppose a
joint report involving the expenditure of
$1,250,000,000 to develop the West. I
cannot conceive why he should do it.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator indulge me fur¬
ther?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. As a mem¬
ber for many years of the subcommittee
of the Commerce Committee I can bear
witness to the industry and genius I may
say of the chairman of the subcommit¬
tee, the distinguished Senator from Lou¬
isiana. I should like to ask the Senator
from Louisiana if he ever heard during
the long and arduous sessions involving
great controversies as to flood control
and river and harbor problems of the
United States a suggestion made of the
so-called Murray-Langer amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. None whatsoever.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I attended
most of the sessions — the Senator from
Louisiana attended them all — but I never
heard any such suggestion made, and I
never saw the Senator from Montana or
the Senator from North Dakota at a
meeting of that committee. If they ever
Intended to offer such a suggestion as
that, they certainly never offered it to
the committee having jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Louisiana yield to the Sen¬
ator from North Dakota?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield the floor.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me before he yields the
floor?
Mr. OVERTON. Does the Senator de¬
sire to ask me a question?
Mr. LANGER. Yes.
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly, I yield.
Mr. LANGER. I merely wish to keep
the record straight. I want to suggest
to the Senator that his memory is slightly
at fault, for I not only appeared at the
time he indicated, but the Senator very
kindly one day gave me nearly an hour
in his private office to go over this matter
with him.
Mr. OVERTON. I have discussed it
with a great many Senators and with a
great many who are not Senators.
Mr. LANGER. I said at that time that
I intended to be at the meeting, but was
engaged in other committee meetings.
I went, however, to one meeting and all
those called by the Senator from Wyom¬
ing [Mr. O’Mahoney], who is in charge
of another angle of this bill. I personal¬
ly appeared together with other Sena¬
tors. I merely wish to keep the record
straight.
Mr. OVERTON. But neither in any
private or in any public appearance did
the Senator ever mention the Missouri
Valley.
Mr. LANGER. Not so far as the Sena¬
tor from Louisiana was concerned.
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Louisiana yield for a ques¬
tion?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. BUTLER. I think Nebraska is the
only State in the entire group of the
Missouri Valley Basin which is 100 per¬
cent within the Missouri Valley Basin.
So we in Nebraska are keenly interested
in the adoption of this proposal, and I
for one would very much regret any delay
in the passage of the bill at this session
of Congress.
The question I wish to ask either the
Senator from Louisiana or the Senator
from Montana is this: Would not the
passage of this bill as proposed at this
session work in line with the ultimate
development, if some future Congress
desires to organize it, of an M. V. A.?
Whatever we do under this bill will be a
constructive part of the program in the
future, so let us not delay the develop¬
ment of the Missouri Valley area at this
time, and have further damage of mil¬
lions and tens of millions of dollars year
after year while we are waiting to deter¬
mine something which has not yet had a
hearing before Congress.
Mr. MURRAY. I might say, in an¬
swer to that, if the Senator from Loui¬
siana will permit, that the bill as it now
stands undertakes to foreclose the possi¬
bility of a Missouri River Authority, by
reason of the provisions which are in
the bill. The Senator will notice in sec¬
tion 9, I believe it is, under the head of
“Missouri River Basin,” the bill under¬
takes to set up a Missouri River Com¬
mission. He will notice on page 21 of the
bill, starting at the third line, that it
proceeds to describe the Missouri River
Commission which is to be set up in
connection with the legislation. The
purpose of that is to get away from the
possibility of a Missouri River Authority.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, of course, the Senator may not be
familiar with the vast amount^ of work
which has been done by the Mississippi
River Commission, which I think every¬
one who lives in the lower part of the
Mississippi Valley will agree was di¬
rectly responsible, under the great Over-
ton Act, introduced by the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. Overton] for preventing
in the lower part of the Mississippi Val¬
ley floods which used to be so disastrous.
This bill is supposed to be a flood-
control bill. The creation of a Missouri
River Commission, patterned along the
lines of the Mississippi River Commis¬
sion, certainly would not interfere with
any future legislation which Congress
might see fit to enact setting up a Mis¬
souri Valley Authority. This is a flood-
control bill and is necessary because fre¬
quently in my section we are imder the
water. The Senator from Montana may
not be so much interested in it, but down
at my end of the Missouri Valley we are
under the water every year. We have
had as many as two or three floods a
year, and the whole theory of setting up
a Missouri Valley Commission is sim¬
ply that while we pursue the present
system of keeping the water off us so far
as we can, we adopt the methods which
have been used in the lower Mississippi
Valley.
Mr. President, this is an amendment I
myself offered. There is no intention
on earth of precluding any future de¬
velopment which might come about in
the way of an M. V. A., although I am
personally opposed to that. It is for the
purpose of keeping the water off people
who are now suffering Inundation.
Mr. MURRAY. I will say, in answer
to what the Senator has stated, that we
in the upper States are in complete
sympathy with his program and his
efforts to protect the people in his part of
the valley from the water, and we wish
to cooperate with them, but they have
been unable to get to any agreement and
they have been fighting about this for a
long while.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
stated that the inclusion of the provision
in this bill for a Missouri River Commis¬
sion was designed to preclude a Missouri
Valley Authority. As the author of the
amendment, I can say to the Senator
from Montana that there was no such
intention in connection with the amend¬
ment.
Mr. MURRAY. But the Senator is op¬
posed to a Missouri Valley Authority.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am; but
that is an entirely different question.
What I am trying to do now is to keep
the water off the lands of people who live
in the lower Missouri Valley.
Mr. MURRAY. Is it not the Senator’s
thought that the Missouri River Au¬
thority proposed to be set up will be
better able to cope with this problem, and
to work out a program?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I think that
whether we ever have a Missouri River
Valley Authority or not, which I think is
an extremely problematical question, the
Missouri River Commission, armed with
proper authority, similar to that of the
Mississippi River Commission, would be
able to solve the flood control situation
in the lower reaches of the Missouri River,
which I think is very vitally necessary to
the lives of our people.
The Senator from Montana, who lives
on the upper reaches of the Missouri
River, is in a position to regard the whole
problem from an extremely theoretical
view. I never in my life lived more than
15 miles from the Mississippi River and
20 miles from the Missouri River. I hap¬
pen to live where the flood problems ac¬
tually exist, and I therefore regard the
subject from an extremely practical
standpoint, not from a theoretical stand¬
point, not from reading newspaper edi¬
torials, not from reading Dave Lilien-
thal’s book, not from reading anything
of that sort. I regard it from the stand¬
point of a man who lives under the floods
which come down.
Mr. MURRAY. I wish to say to the
Senator that my interest in this problem
has not been stimulated by reading any
No. 162 - 1
8496
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 24
editorials. I live in Montana, and have
lived there for nearly half a century, and
I know this problem. I know how it af¬
fects Montana, and I know how it affects
the lower valley States, too, and I am in
ssmipathy with working out a program
for this problem so that it will benefit not
only Montana and Missouri and the other
States, but the whole country.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. But the Sen¬
ator from Montana insists not only on
working out a flood-control program, but
also on imposing a supergovernment on
us, to which a great many people in Mis¬
souri are opposed.
Mr. MURRAY. The theory of work¬
ing it out from the standpoint of flood
control alone has failed, and it has failed
continually for many years. This piece¬
meal effort to handle this problem will
never succeed. That is the judgment
and opinion of the best engineers and the
best students of the problem all over the
United States today. If Senators will
take notice, all over the country people
are beginning to discuss this subject, and
demand that we have a program which
will not only handle the actual con¬
struction of these dams but will handle
the other problems which are incidental
to the development of these basins, and
without that we are not going to be able
to meet the problems which will be upon
us at the end of this war. If we are to
find jobs for the millions of workers who
will be compelled to hunt for jobs when
the war ends, we have to have a program
which will enable us to develop the re¬
sources of these Western States — these
valleys — which have tremendous re¬
sources, and have a basis for settling
millions of new settlers in that section
tion of the country. We cannot further
expand industry in the East, where it is
already overdeveloped. We will have to
come out to this area, where we can bring
in millions of new settlers, and develop it.
There is a beautiful map here on the
wall — a very alluring thing to look at —
but the projects are not engineered, and
this agreement, which has been signed
by the Army engineers and the Bureau
of Reclamation, shows that they have
not been engineered. But the effort is
to enact legislation, and go into the engi¬
neering problems afterward.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. Does not the Sena¬
tor understand that after any project is
authorized, whether it be under the War
Department, or should, perchance, be one
connected with the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion work, detailed plans and specifica¬
tions are prepared?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. OVERTON. In the further study
It frequently becomes necessary, as an
engineering proposition, to make modi¬
fications so as to come nearer perfection
and improve the project.
That is especially true with reference
to basins. I do not think we have ever
authorized the development of any basin
or project and at the same time have not
given authority to the Chief of Engineers
to make such modifications as in his
discretion are deemed reasonable. Those
are minor modifications which come up
in detailed study of plans and after fur¬
ther investigation. If a Missouri River
authority were established and it would
undertake to fix upon a project without
any modifications it would reduce itself
to an absurdity.
I will give the Senator an example.
There was under consideration the con¬
struction of what is now known as the
Kentucky Dam. The T. V. A. had in¬
tended to build that dam at one place
on the river. The evidence first ad¬
duced showed that, as the dam was to be
administered by the T. V. A., the place
chosen by the T. V. A. was the proper
place to construct the dam. Further in¬
vestigation showed that that was not the
proper place to construct it, that it should
be constructed farther down the river.
It was found on further investigation that
safe foundations could not be constructed
at the point originally designated for the
location of the Kentucky Dam, so modi¬
fications were made and the dam was
located further down the river. That is
true also with respect to other dams in
the T. V. A. system. I am quite sure
that is true. The Senator from Tennes¬
see [Mr. McKellar] is npt present at the
moment to verify my statement. I do
not think there is any doubt, however,
about the truth of the statement. Modi¬
fications must be made wherever neces¬
sary, and I think it would be a very un¬
sound thing for the Congress to author¬
ize the development of any basin and not
give authority to those entrusted with
the development to make such minor
'modifications as may be necessary.
Mr. MURRAY. No one is criticizing
the need for minor modifications. That
is not what I am discussing.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes; I yield.
Mr. LANGER. May I call the atten¬
tion of the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana to the fact that on the 18th
day of August, 3 months ago, the junior
Senator from- Montana [Mr. Murray]
discussed the M. V. A. in detail upon the
floor of the Senate. He at that time
talked for over an hour and a half on
the subject. At that time he said that
this is an over-ali proposition; that it
involves flood control, that it involves
irrigation, and that it involves power,
and that before any legislation were en¬
acted the Senator from Montana in¬
tended to be heard upon the matter on
the floor of the Senate. That, as I un¬
derstand it, has been the attitude of the
distinguished junior Senator from Mon¬
tana. Am I not correct in that state¬
ment?
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator is correct
in his statement.
Mr. LANGER. The Senator from Mon¬
tana wen£ into the minutest detail in his
discussion on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly he did.
That was his own testimony, and he was
speaking to his own bill, and not to an
amendment to the pending bill.
Mr. LANGER. But that was done 3
months ago.
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly it was.
Mr. LANGER. So certainly the Sena¬
tor from Louisiana cannot say that he
Is taken by surprise now, and that we are
not acting in good faith when we now
offer the amendment dealing with the
M. V. A.
Mr. OVERTON. I do not charge Sen¬
ators with any bad faith, but I do think
it is wholly unsound and wholly unrea¬
sonable to offer such Important legisla¬
tion as a proposal to establish an au¬
thority to rebate the whole Missouri
Basin, which stretches miles upon miles
over the country, and goes through State
after State, without any evidence being
presented, and simply to accept the pro¬
posal on the ipse dixit of the Senator
from Montana and the Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in re¬
ply to that, I may say to the Senator
from Louisiana that all over the country
people are expressing alarm at his action
in seeking to force this legislation
through the Senate at this time. I read
an editorial in the Washington Post day
before yesterday in which was pointed
out the viciousness of the proposed legis¬
lation and the fact that it was unneces¬
sary.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Sena¬
tor has not heard anyone deny that
exhaustive hearings have been held by
the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors
and the Subcommittee on Flood Control
of the Commerce Committee, that every¬
one was afforded the fullest opportunity
to appear before the subcommittees, that
a very large number of witnesses did
appear before the committees, and that
the matter received the fullest consid¬
eration by those subcommittees and also
by the full committees.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. As I said, I
never saw the Senator from Montana
or the Senator from North Dakota before
either the subcommittees or the full
committee.
Mr. MURRAY. But after all these
exhaustive hearings which were had and
the full consideration which was given,
the members of the committee did not
do anything about the matter.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Sena¬
tor from Montana thinks that he can
go over to his oifice and hold a caucus
with himself and make up his mind as
to very much more improved legislation
than the subcommittee and the full com¬
mittee having jurisdiction of the sub¬
ject could prepare.
Mr. MURRAY. Oh, no.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am not in
agreement with that view. I do not
think there is anything innate in the
distinguished Senator from Montana
which permits him to lock himself up in
his own office by himself, and possibly
with a representative of the C. I. O. —
Mr. MURRAY. Well, now, just a
minute.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. And arrive
at a conclusion that is better than that
of the Commerce Committee.
Mr. MURRAY. I should like to ask
the Senator where he got this notion
that I was locked up in my ofBce with a
C, I. O. representative?
1944
8497
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I got the notion from the fact that
the Senator habitually introduces meas¬
ures sponsored by the C. I. O.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator is gravely
mistaken about the Senator from Mon¬
tana. I have not undertaken to intro¬
duce any legislation coming from the
C. I. O. I never introduced a bill in the
Senate of the United States since I have
been here on behalf of the C. I. O. or after
consultation with them on any subject
whatever.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent —
Mr. MURRAY. Just a moment. I
have the right to defend myself.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I apologize to the Senator from
Montana.
Mr. MURRAY. I have the Coor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator from Montana declines to yield.
Mr. MURRAY. I have the floor. The
Senator from Missouri has cast some as¬
persions upon me here, and I want to tell
him that my record in the Senate is just
as good as his, if not a little better in
some respects, and I want to tell him that
he has no right to stand up on the floor of
the Senate and try to create the impres¬
sion that I am an agent for the C. I. O.
here. I am not. I have not introduced
one bill since I have been in the Senate
of the United States in which the C. I. O.
was interested. I have never consulted
them on the pending legislation. So that
the Senator is entirely mistaken when he
tries to create the impression here that
I have been associated with or interested
with the C. I. O. in connection with this
legislation.
The Senator said that I locked myself
up in my office and then undertook to
determine for myself what kind of legis¬
lation we should have here. I have not
done anything of the kind. The Senator
told us here a few moments ago that a
number of Senators from the West ap¬
peared before his committee here and
they tried to advise the committee and
assist the committee in working out leg¬
islation, but the members of the com¬
mittee did not work it out, they did not
accept the suggestions of those who ap¬
peared before them. The Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney] has a bill
pending now -
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. For the Informa¬
tion of the Senate along the line the
Senator is discussing now, I wish to say
that the Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Aiken] and I went before the commit¬
tee and asked to be heard on the subject
of the St. Lawrence waterway. We
could never obtain a hearing. The
Senator from Louisiana would not give
me a hearing if I did go there. The
Senator would not give me a look-in
anyway.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It Is unques¬
tionably a fact that the subcommittee
of the Commerce Committee has been
holding hearings on the St. Lawrence
waterway for the last 3 days, is it not?
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I do not know of
it.
Mr. MURRAY. Secret hearings.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I never heard of it.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. They have
been holding hearings.
Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I never heard of it.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. There is no
question that they have been holding
hearings. The Senator from Ver¬
mont —
Mr. MURRAY. No one was notified
of them. I will ask the Senator from
Vermont if that is not true?
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I am sor¬
ry I did not hear the conversation.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The charge
has been made here that the Commerce
Committee refused to allow hearings on
the St. Lawrence waterway. Is it not
true that the subcommittee of the Com¬
mittee on Commerce held three different
hearings on the St. Lawrence waterway?
Mr. AIKEN. No; I did not understand
that they held any hearings on the
merits of the waterway. I think what
the Senator refers to is what happened
last spring, when the river and harbor
bill came over from the House.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Did they
not have a hearing this morning?
Mr. AIKEN. I do not know whether
they did. I am not on the committee.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Was not the
Senator notified?
Mr. AIKEN. No.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Was he not
notified day before yesterday?
Mr. AIKEN. No.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, during
my temporary absence from the Cham¬
ber I am advised the question was asked
what notice was given of the hearings
on the St. Lawrence seaway. When the
hearings were contemplated I wrote a
letter to the members of the subcom¬
mittee stating I was going to call a meet¬
ing of the subcommittee for the purpose
of determining when hearings would be
conducted and what would be the pre¬
liminary scope of those hearings.
I suggested to the members of the sub¬
committee that we begin hearings on the
following Monday — that was Monday of
this week — November 20, and that the
hearings be confined to the preliminary,
fundamental, and paramount question as
to whether the arrangement between the
Dominion of Canada and the United
States of America is a treaty or an ex¬
ecutive agreement — ^in other words,
whether it is an instrument requiring
ratification by a two-thirds vote of the
Senate, or whether it could be ratified
by a majority vote of both Houses. I
sent a copy of that notice to the Sena¬
tor from Vermont, the author of the bill,
and also to others who were interested
in the matter.
When the subcommittee met it deter¬
mined to begin hearings; not on Monday,
but on Tuesday, November 21, and to
confine the hearings to the question
whether or not the arrangement is a
treaty or an executive agreement. I
promptly notified the Senator from Ver¬
mont, the author of the bill, that hear¬
ings would be begun in the rooms of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, and in¬
vited him to attend the hearings. I ex¬
plained to him exactly what the scope of
the hearings would be, and told him in
effect that we would be very glad to
hear any statement which he might de¬
sire to make.
The Senator from Vermont did not
answer the courteous invitation which I
extended to him, but the other day he
took the floor of the Senate and stated
that he had received the invitation, but
did not propose to attend. Therefore the
Senator from Vermont has had notice.
We had hearings on Tuesday and
Wednesday. Thursday was Thanksgiv¬
ing Day. This morning, because of the
absence of two witnesses whom we ex¬
pected to have on the stand, there were
no witnesses to testify, and we took a
recess until Monday. That is the status.
Notices were given in the press as to the
hearings, and the scope of the hearings.
The intimation of concealment on the
part of the Senate Committee on Com¬
merce is wrong, both with reference to
the river and harbor bill and the flood-
control bill, as well as the St. Lawrence
seaway. There has never been any con¬
cealment. I gave notice on the floor of
the Senate as to the time of the hearings
and the schedule of hearings, project by
project, both as to the river and harbor
bill and the flood-control bill. I gave a
notice twice or possibly three times. I
called in representatives of the press and
gave them the notices, and the press pub¬
lished the notices.
With respect to the St. Lawrence sea¬
way, notices were given in the press.
Those notices were issued before the
Senate was in session, and therefore I
could not give notice on the floor, but I
notified the author of the bill, as well as
others interested, who I thought might
wish to testify. I notified the State De¬
partment and the Department of Justice.
I also notified the representatives of those
who oppose the St. Lawrence seaway.
Mr. MURRAY obtained the floor.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield to me long
enough to make an explanation of the
matter which has been brought up?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I hope I shall not be in¬
terrupted before I have finished.
First, there is the question of the Com¬
mittee on Commerce refusing last spring
to hear the proponents of the St. Law¬
rence seaway, when the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. Shipstead] and I visited
the Committee on Commerce. The river
and harbor bill had come over from the
House. Hearings were announced by the
Committee on Commerce. After they
were announced I read — I believe in a
schedule sent out by the Senator from
Louisiana — that 2 days would be devoted
to the Tombigbee waterway, which was
not in the bill when it came over from the
House. So long as there was a proposal
to add this southern waterway to the
bill, it occurred to me that it would be
entirely apropos to add the St. Lawrence
seaway project also. So I asked the
chairman of the Committee on Com¬
merce if he would give us an equal
8498
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 24
amount of time to present the merits of
the St. Lawrence seaway project. He
declined to do so.
One day the Senator from Minnesota
and I visited the committee while it was
in session. The official reporter took
down the statement which I made. I
asked the Senator from Louisiana if he
would give us 1 hour to present the
merits of the St. Lawrence seaway
project, with the idea of offering it as an
amendment to the river and harbor bill,
and he refused to give us 1 hour.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me for the purpose
of correcting the Record?
Mr. AIKEN. No; I will not yield. I
wish to finish.
The Senator from Louisiana, how¬
ever, did say, along about that time, in
April, that he would hold hearings on
the St. Lawrence seaway bill. He so
stated on the floor of the Senate. He
met me at various places and assured
me that he would hold such hearings
without deiay just as quickly as he could
finish with the river and harbor bill.
The committee finished with the flood-
control bill first, I beiieve, and with the
river and harbor bill in June. No time
was set for hearings on the St. Lawrence
seaway. We took a recess in July. The
Senator had told me that he would start
hearings as quickly as possible after we
came back. I believe we came back
about the 1st of August. In the mean¬
time, Mr. President, he had engaged in
a primary campaign. I had no inclina-.
tion to hinder his work in that campaign,
so I did not press him for hearings at
that time, feeling sure that as soon as
the Louisiana primaries were over, on the
12th of September, he wouid proceed
with hearings on the St. Lawrence sea¬
way project, and that it might be possible
to obtain action on it at this session of
Congress.
However, about the time the campaign
was finished I received a copy of a page
from the New Orleans Times-Picayune of
Sunday, September 10, 1944. It is a full-
page paid advertisement, which I hold
in my hand, in behalf of the senior Sen¬
ator from Louisiana. I shall read it
again. I read it the other day, and I
shall read it as often as it necessary, as
often as the question is raised.
In one part of the advertisement we
find the heading “Opposes St. Lawrence
Seaway.” I read:
Opposes St. Lawrence Seaway
With John H. Overton in the Senate Lou¬
isiana and the South need have no fear that
the freight tralBc that justly should pass
through our ports will be diverted by greedy
combinations and unfair legislation to the
so-called St. Lawrence seaway.
THREAT TO NEW ORLEANS
New Orleans knows that the proposed St.
Lawrence channel is a threat to the export
and import business that means so much to
the Crescent City. The proposal means that
hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars
will be spent to make an artificial sea chan¬
nel through the ice-bound North to carry
freight to the eastern seaboard that now
more easily and economically moves down
the great Mississippi through New Orleans.
The proposal is doubly unfair because Fed¬
eral taxes levied on Louisiana would be used
to destroy Louisiana commerce.
OVERTON STOPS PROJECT
Senator John H. Overton has successfully
prevented the passage of this measure, be¬
cause he is chairman of the Senate special
committee in charge of legislation concern¬
ing the St. Lawrence seaway. Senator Over-
ton declared his opposition to this visionary
scheme when the chairmanship was tendered
him, but his colleagues in the Senate, know¬
ing his thoroughness and uprightness, in¬
sisted that he accept the appointment. This
compliment to John H. Overton’s character
has hardly been surpassed in the annals of
the American Congress. ’The compliment to
Louisiana should not be lightly tossed aside.
But more than that, if John H. Overton does
not return to the Senate, into whose hands
would this project fall?
Today John H. Overton Is the stalwart and
successful defender of Louisiana’s rights.
Louisiana must return him to the Senate.
In another column of the advertise¬
ment his opposition to the seaway is re¬
iterated. In still another column it is
stated that the Senator from Louisiana
can get appropriations. It tells about all
the money he can get for Louisiana
through the flood-control and river-and-
harbor program. I quote:
Senator Overton is one of the senior ma¬
jority members of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, and from this committee will
come the legislation appropriating the money
to pay for the deep-water channel.
’These two committee positions, so impor¬
tant right now to New Orleans, will be lost
to the city and to Louisiana should Senator
Overton not be reelected.
new ORLEANS NEEDS OVERTON
Because New Orleans needs Senator John
H. Overton’s Influence and prestige in the
Senate and because he will handle the
deep-water-channel legislation are only two
among many reasons why every loyal citizen
of New Orleans and of the State should vote
for Senator Overton’s reelection on Sep¬
tember 12.
New Orleans’ one great hope for a deep-
sea channel lies in the reelectlon of Senator
John H. Overton.
That is from the paid advertisement
I have been reading.
After that I received many clippings
from Louisiana newspapers. I should
like to read several of them. One is from
the Shreveport Times for August 9, 1944.
It is a report regarding a radio address
made by the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Overton] from Washington, D. C.,
on August 8, 1944. I quote from the
newspaper chpping:
’The Louisiana Senator spoke by radio from
the Capital, where he has been attending to
official business of the Senate.
Senator OvHatTON pointed out that he be¬
gan his career as a Member of Congress in
the House of Representatives in 1931, serving
then on the House Flood Control Committee,
and then went on to the United States Sen¬
ate, where he now occupies such important
and key posts as chairman of the Subcom¬
mittee on Flood Control, of the Subcommit¬
tee on Rivers and Harbors, of the Subcommit¬
tee on the St. Lawrence Seaway (which he is
fighting vigorously as inimical to southern
business interests), of the Subcommittee on
Navy Appropriations, ranking majority mem¬
ber of the Army Appropriations Committee,
chairman of the Manufacturers’ Commit¬
tee, etc.
I have many other similar clippings
from newspapers.
Here is another one which I should like
to read. It comes from the Alexandria
Daily Town Talk for Wednesday, August
9, 1944, and is a dispatch by the As¬
sociated Press:
Washington, August 9. — Senator John H.
Overton made the third of a series of cam¬
paign addresses to his Louisiana constituents
last night, asking reelectlon and reviewing
flood-control work and rivers and harbors
developments authorized by Congress during
the 12 years he has been in the Senate.
“If I were to leave the Senate, who from
Louisiana would be able to continue where
I left off?” Overton asked in a speech for radio
broadcast in his native State. “Who would
be chairman of the Flood Control and Rivers
and Harbors Committees?”
Overton said that the general plan of flood
control on the Mississippi “has been au-
thorlz‘'d and is being executed. It remains,
however, for necessary appropriations to be
made annually by Congress to complete and
keep in shipshape this great engineering
work,” he added.
“Fortunately, I am in a position to get
these appropriations,” he said. “I am a mem¬
ber of the Appropriations Committee of the
Senate and the ranking majority member of
the War Department Appropriations Subcom¬
mittee, which recommends all allocations to
be made for flood control and river and har¬
bor work.”
FLOOD -CONTROL WORK
Overton said that Congress had appropri¬
ated $19,000,000 for the fiscal year 1944 and
$26,000,000 for fiscal 1945 for flood-control
work on the lower Mlssisssippi Valley, but
that “only a token payment of $100” has
been allotted for “all flood-control work out¬
side of the Mississippi Valley.”
In the light of all that, Mr. President,
it seems to me that I can be excused if
I was a little skeptical by that time as
to the intention of the Senator from
Louisiana to give fair hearings to the
St. Lawrence project. One of the dis¬
patches was dated August 2, about the
time when we were going to hold hear¬
ings. The Senator from Louisiana
pledged himself time and again, to his
constituents, to defeat the St. Lawrence
project. In the full-page advertisement
it is said —
In offering for reelectlon. Senator Overton
stated, “My platform will be the record of
my service and the promise that such a
record holds in the future. Upon that plat¬
form I submit my candidacy to all the peo¬
ple and all the factions of Louisiana.
Mr. President, it seems to me that any¬
one would have been justified in being
skeptical. I do not mind his expressions
as much as I do his going home to Loui¬
siana and bragging about it. It seems to
me that is adding insult to injury, to
say the least.
As to the hearings which are now be¬
ing held, after the committee has had
the bill for 14 months, let me say that
in the first place I attempted to have
the bill referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations, but I could not suc¬
ceed in having that done. However, now,
after the Commerce Committee has held
the bill for 14 months, it suddenly chal¬
lenges its own right to the bill of which
it has held possession all the time. It
announced that it will hold a hearing
to determine whether the President’s
message and the contract between the
United States and Canada should have
been submitted to the Senate as a treaty
or as, an agreement.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
8499
It appeared to me, Mr. President, that
the chairman of the committee was
challenging the State Department.
Nothing was to be said at the hearing on
the merits of the St. Lawrence seaway
itself, but simply on the method which
the President could use to get the con¬
tract approved. The Senator from
Louisiana did write me a letter announc¬
ing that the hearing would be held. He
said witnesses would be restricted to au¬
thorities on constitutional law. The
State Department will have one, I un¬
derstand, and I understand that the pub¬
lic utility companies also have a witness
waiting to testify. The Senator told me
the committee would be glad to have any
statement I would like to make. I do not
pose as an expert in any degree on con¬
stitutional law. I did not see anything
to be gained by entering into the dis¬
pute between the Commerce Committee
and the State Department. Further¬
more, I did not see anything to be gained
by my appearance before the commit¬
tee; I felt that any appearance before
the committee would be futile, inasmuch
as a majority of the committee told the
press they believed it should be a treaty,
not an agreement, and they made that
statement before they had heard a sin¬
gle word of testimony.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent —
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc¬
Clellan in the chair). The Senator
from Missouri.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President -
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield to
the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have
the floor.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, the Senator from Montana lost the
floor by sitting down for 14 minutes while
the Senator from Vermont read a dia¬
tribe attacking the Senator from Louisi¬
ana. The Senator from Montana abso¬
lutely lost the floor by taking his seat
and retaining it until he heard me get up
and request recognition and, after being
recognized, yield to the Senator from
Louisiana. I maintain that the Senator
from Montana lost the floor by sitting
down while the Senator from Vermont
read the diatribe attacking the Senator
from Louisiana,
I am glad to yield -
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me
make an explanation. The Senator
from Louisiana desires to reply to the
Senator from Vermont, and I had con¬
sented to have -
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I do not need
the consent of the Senator from Mon¬
tana. I shall be glad to yield to the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana, but I will not yield
to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. MURRAY. If the Senator from
Missouri is the dominant figure in that
committee, I can understand how the
kind of bill the Senator Is now support¬
ing has been brought from the commit¬
tee.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I object to
personal references by the Senator from
Montana. I can take care of a matter of
that kind in my own time.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator from
Missouri started the personal references.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I object very j
seriously, Mr. President, to having the
Senator from Montana take the floor
after he has lost it.
I shall be glad to yield to the Senator
from Louisiana.
Mr. MURRAY, Mr. President, I desire
to have a ruling from the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will state that the situation is that
the Senator from Montana had the floor
and yielded to the Senator from Ver¬
mont, and then took his seat. The Chair
did not know whether the Senator from
Montana was yielding the floor.
Mr. MURRAY. No, Mr. President; I
did not take my seat. I leaned against
the seat for a few minutes.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, that is the most ridiculous propo¬
sition I ever heard.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, now I
can understand the situation regarding
the bill the Senator got from the com¬
mittee.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I object to
having the Senator speak out of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will state that at the time when
recognition was requested by the Sena¬
tor from Missouri, the Chair thought he
recognized that the Senator from Mon¬
tana was occupying his seat. The Chair
stated that the Senator from Missouri
would be recognized as the next speaker.
The Chair assumed that the Senator
from Montana had yielded the floor.
The Chair now recognizes the Sena¬
tor from Missouri.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, assuming that it may be agreed
that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
Overton] may be recognized, since per¬
sonal attack has been made on him, and
since he is entitled to answer that at¬
tack, I ask unanimous consent that I
may be permitted to yield the floor to
the Senator from Louisiana so that he
may answer tbe personal attack made
on him by the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield to me, I will answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the
Senator from Missouri yields the floor,
the Chair will be glad to recognize the
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. No; I will not
yield the floor, I will be glad to yield to
the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Missouri will permit me,
and without engaging in a debate as to
who has or who has not the floor, I should
like to make an inquiry of my friend, the
Senator from Missouri.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a parlia¬
mentary inquiry.
Mr. OVERTON. I was about to say -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair wishes to entertain the parliamen¬
tary inquiry. The Senator from New
Mexico has asked to make a parliamen¬
tary inquiry. The Senator will state it,
Mr. OVERTON. The Chair has recog¬
nized the Senator from Missouri as hav¬
ing the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair recognizes the Senator from Mis¬
souri as having the floor, but when the
Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Hatch]
made a parliamentary inquiry the Chair
wished to recognize him for that purpose.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I with¬
draw my parliamentary inquiry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I yielded to the Senator from Lou¬
isiana in order that he might ask a ques¬
tion.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
should like to proceed without interrup¬
tion.
I am somewhat surprised that any
Member of this body should undertake to
place me in a false light before the Mem¬
bers of the Senate and before the coun¬
try, and that unpardonably he should do
so without adhering to the facts. I have
always imdertaken to treat the Senator
from Vermont, as well as other Senators,
with proper respect. I hope I shall al¬
ways be able to do so, and that I shall not
be provoked into departing from what I
believe to be the duty and high standard
of a United States Senator.
It should be borne in mind that in
either September or October of last year
the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Aiken]
introduced a bill with reference to the
St. Lawrence seaway. I am sure it was
more than a year ago. No further ef¬
fort was made with regard to it for quite
some time.
I was notified by the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Bailey], who is
chairman of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, that I was to be appointed
chairman of a subcommittee to handle
the bill. When he requested me to act
as chairman of the subcommittee I said
to him, “I think it is only proper for
me to say to you that I am opposed to the
St. Lawrence seaway project.” His
answer was that he desired me, never¬
theless, to proceed as chairman of the
subcommittee and to conduct hearings
in due course. I believe that conversa¬
tion took place in January. I have here¬
tofore given the exact dates on the floor
of the Senate and they appear in the
Congressional Record.
Immediately following my selection as
chairman I asked whether any depart¬
mental reports had been received. I
could have proceeded with the hear¬
ings at that time if the departmental
reports had been filed. I was advised
that no reports whatever had been sub¬
mitted. Approximately each work week
thereafter — my recollection has been
confirmed by the deputy clerk of the
Senate Committee on Commerce — I
asked whether there had been any de¬
partmental reports submitted and I was
advised that there had been none.
The situation continued until about
April, when the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Aiken] apparently awoke to the
realization that he had introduced a bill
undertaking to implement the arrange¬
ment which had been entered into be¬
tween Canada and the United States.
According to newspaper reports, he
called upon His Excellency, the Presi¬
dent of the United States. Also, accord¬
ing to newspaper reports, the President
of the United States directed that all in¬
terested departments submit reports on
the Aiken bill. Reports then began to
come in. They came in pretty rapidly.
8500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 24
All the reports which had been requested
up to that time were submitted by the
latter part of April.
In the meantime, however, the House
had passed the river and harbor bill. I
was chairman of the Subcommittee on
Rivers and Harbors, and the bill to which
I have referred was placed in my lap to
handle. As I have said, it was a House-
passed bill. I felt that it was my duty to
take up the bill which had been passed
by the House. It dealt with a multitude
of projects which, at least collectively,
would be of infinitely more value to the
United States than would be the St.
Lawrence seaway project.
For the reasons which I have stated
I promptly directed hearings to be held
on the river and harbor bill. I gave
notice on the floor of the Senate of
hearings to be held. I also gave notice
through the press so that anyone having
an interest in the matter could appear
before the subcommittee.
I invite attention of the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Bailey], as well as
other members of the subcommittee, to
the statement which I am about to make
because I differ with the Senator from
Vermont in the statement which he has
made.
In the midst of holding hearings by
the subcommittee having charge of the
river and harbor legislation the Senator
from Vermont and the senior Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. Shipstead] ap¬
peared before the subcommittee hand¬
ling the river and harbor bill, and ex¬
pressed a desire to be given a hearing,
not on any amendment which had been
proposed by the Senator from Vermont
to the river and harbor bill but stating
that they desired a hearing on the sepa¬
rate bill dealing with the St. Lawrence
seaway project.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I refuse to yield be¬
cause the Senator from Vermont refused
to yield to me. Otherwise I should be
glad to yield to him.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I have the floor. If the Senator
from Louisiana wishes to reply to the
Senator from Vermont I shall be glad to
yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Misouri yield; and if so, to
whom?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I do not
yield to any Member unless the Senator
from Louisiana is willing to be Inter¬
rupted.
Mr. OVERTON. I do not wish to be
Interrupted.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise
to a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator from
Missouri has lost the floor because he
has been leaning on his desk for the last
15 minutes. [Laughter.]
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I have been standing right here,
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I in¬
vite attention to the fact that the Sen¬
ator from Missouri was leaning against
his desk.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I did not
take my seat, and I understood the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana desired to ask a
question. _
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator from Missouri is standing, and he
still retains the floor.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
request to which I have referred came
to a subcommittee which had nothing to
do with the Aiken bill. The subcommit¬
tee was the Subcommittee on Rivers and
Harbors. Another subcommittee had
been appointed to handle the Aiken bill.
The chairman of the Commerce Com¬
mittee,, the Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. Bailey], advised the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. Aiken] and the Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. Shipstead] that the
Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee had
no jurisdiction over the Aikin bill, and
that hearings would have to be conducted
by the subcommittee which had been
appointed to conduct such hearings.
Thereupon the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Aiken] very naively remarked that
the chairman of both subcommittees was
one and the same person, namely, my
humble self. I replied that that was the
only relationship existing between the
two subcommittees. Mr. President, the
Senator from Vermont did not ask me to
do so, but if he had asked that I adjourn
the hearings on the river and harbor bill
and proceed with hearings on the St.
Lawrence seaway bill I should have re¬
fused to do so. He said he could present
his matter in an hour, which was doubt¬
ful, but at the same time there were
countless other persons who were inter¬
ested in the St. Lawrence project, either
for or against it, who wished to be heard.
When hearings are held on the merits of
the bill they will probably last for quite
a number of days.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
will recall that in 1934 the very same
proposition was presenjjpd as a treaty,
coming from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, was debated for 8 weeks in this
Chamber, and was afterwards defeated
by a vote of the Senate. This is merely
an attempt, in my opinion, a very cheap
attempt to do by indirection what could
not be done by direction, to put it in as
a measure which could be voted on by
the Committee on Commerce, and would
not require the vote necessary for ratifi¬
cation of a treaty, which was required
when it was last presented in the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. I thank the Senator
for his observation. The Senator from
Vermont has made the statement that I
repeatedly made promises of hearings. I
said nothing to him in conversation about
conducting hearings on the St. Lawrence
seaway, which I did not say here upon
the floor of the Senate. He brought the
matter up on one or two occasions, and
I stated exactly what I was going to do,
and it is to be found in the Record, that
when I got through with the river and
harbor and flood control bills I would
take up the St. Lawrence bill. I did not
go further than that, and could not go
further than that.
The Senator has stated this afternoon
that I was involved in a primary elec¬
tion, and therefore I went home to look
after my candidacy. That is true. Then
he said he expected me immediately af¬
ter the primary election to return to
Washington to conduct hearings on the
St. Lawrence seaway. My primary was
on September 12. There would have
no chance on God’s green earth to as¬
semble the members of the subcommittee
here during the recess of the Congress,
and on the eve of the general national
election. No quorum could be obtained
until after the general election had been
held, and evei*yone knows that.
Mr. President, I returned to Washing¬
ton before November 14, and I came back
here for the purpose of initiating hear¬
ings on the St. Lawrence seaway, as well
as for other purposes. I proceeded to it
very promptly, when I thought I could get
a quorum of the subcommittee, and later
on a quorum of the full committee. 1 did
it, I repeat, very promptly, even before
Congress has reconvened, and gave no¬
tice that on last Monday the hearings
would begin.
Mr. President, I think those who know
me and have a just regard for me would
not think that I had made any state¬
ment, in any campaign or otherwise,
that I would take advantage of any trust
imposed in me by the Congress of the
United States. If there be those who,
through enmity, do not entertain such a
regard for me, I do not care what they
think about me.
The only statements I made in my
campaign concerning the St. Lawrence
seaway and in reference to flood control
are contained in my own broadcasts. I
did state, as everyone knows, that I was
opposed to the St. Lawrence seaway. I
so stated to the chairman when he ap¬
pointed me chairman of the subcommit¬
tee. I made a fight against it here in
1934.
I never made the statement at any
time that I had been delasnng hearings
on the St. Lawrence seaway in order
to defeat it. I said that I was opposed
to it, and that I would do what I could
toward defeating it. I have a right to
an opinion. The fact that I am chair¬
man of a subcommittee does not deprive
me of my right to an opinion. Chair¬
men of full committees and chairmen of
subcommittees are constantly express¬
ing their opinions, and I have as much
right to an opinion as has the author of
the bill as to the merits or demerits of
the St. Ijawrence seaway.
Two days before the primary election,
which occurred on September 12, there
were some very enthusiastic friends of
mine — and I appreciate their warm
friendship — who did insert in the Times-
Picayune a full-page advertisement, the
Times-Picayune being a paper published
in the city of New Orleans. The adver¬
tisement was entitled “Congress in Ac¬
tion,’’ a beautiful headline, and it con¬
tained very laudatory comments about
me. I was not the author of thece
eulogies. It was prepared by friends of
mine, and I really do not kno*/, outside
of one or two whom I have since found
out about, who were instrumental in
getting up this full-page advertisement
and inserting it in the Times-Picayune
in reference to my candidacy.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8501
The statements made by my overen-
thusiastic friends in order to get the
votes of the people of the city of New
Orleans in behalf of my candidacy, that
I was going to do everything I could as
chairman of the subcommittee to prevent
hearings on the St. Lawrence seaway,
that I proposed to defeat it, and what¬
ever they did say, as has been read by
the Senator from Vermont, were gross
exaggerations, that is all.
What I said in my campaign in ref¬
erence to the St. Lawrence seaway is
all down in writing, because I made no
campaign speeches except those that were
made in State-wide broadcasts and, as
usual, as is necessary, in fact, in order
to make radio broadcasts, one’s speech
must be reduced to writing, and mine were
all reduced to writing, and reproductions
of them can be obtained at Station
KWKH in Shreveport, out of which they
originated and from which they were
carried throughout the State of Loui¬
siana. They could be reproduced in my
own voice or the manuscripts I for¬
warded them can be presented to the
Senator from Vermont or anybody else
who has the curiosity to read them.
Mr. President, I wish to emjDhasize
that I did not at any time make any
statement that I was going to take ad¬
vantage of my position as chairman of
the subcommittee to thwart considera¬
tion of the St. Lawrence, seaway. I
propose to fight it; certainly I do. I
am going to fight it in subcommittee,
in full committee, and on the floor of
the Senate, and I have a right to do
that.
In reference to flood-control appropria¬
tions, I did make the statement that the
Congress had appropriated some flfteen
to twenty million dollars last year for
flood c^lhtrol on the lower Mississippi,
and so many millions the year before,
and all during the war period. But it
made those appropriations on recom¬
mendations made by the Bureau of the
Budget. Tlie appropriations were car¬
ried in the bill as it passed the House,
and it came to the Senate without any
controversy in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. Likewise, under Budget
recommendations, there was a nominal
sum, a token appropriation, of $100, made
for flood control generally throughout the
United States. That was done, not by
any Senate amendment, not by any ac¬
tion of mine, but it was done in the House
of Representatives, and was incorporated
in the bill as it passed the House and
came to the Senate without any contro¬
versy in the Senate whatsoever, and I
had nothing whatsoever to do about the
appropriation.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, before the Senator takes his seat,
I should like to call his attention to the
fact that I did not yield to him for a
speech, but for a question, and I presume
he has been leading up to the question.
I hope before he takes his seat he will
conform to the Senate’s practice by ask¬
ing me the question.
Mr. OVERTON. Indeed I will ask the
Senator a question. I should like to know
whether he is enjoying the best of health.
I hope he is.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I certainly
am.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, if any
fault is to be found about delay in the
consideration of the St. Lawrence sea¬
way, that fault is to be laid on shoulders
other than mine. I think it was in 1941 —
I do not remember exactly — when the
President sent the St. Lawrence agree¬
ment to the Congress. The Senate of the
United States did nothing about it.
There was none so poor in the Senate as
to do it reverence by the introduction of
a bill implementing it. It was an ad¬
ministration measure and it was sent to
Congress as such.
Lo and behold, suddenly there was an
awakening on the part of one Senator.
It did not come from the Democratic side
of the aisle, but from over on the other
side of the aisle. The Senator from Ver¬
mont [Mr. Aiken], a Republican, offered
the bill to implement the administration-
conceived compact between Canada and
the United States. When he offered it
he let it lie there. Is he blaming me be¬
cause I did not offer a bill implementing
it when I was opposed to it? But
after he offered the bill he let it lie until
after the department reports came in,
and I took up the bill to examine it. It
was pulled out of a pigeonhole. It was
all covered with dust; cobwebs were all
over it. It was a musty old bill that had
lain there neglected by its own father.
But now suddenly there is a great re¬
vival of interest on the part of the Sena¬
tor from Vermont, a tremendous urge to
get this bill through, so much so that he
wants Rivers and Harbors Committee
meetings to be stopped. He wants the
river and harbor bill to be thrown out
of the window. He wants flood-control
hearings to be stopped in order that his
own bill, which had lain so long neglected
by him, by the President of the United
States, and by all of the Government
departments, can be brought to the Sen¬
ate floor and shot through the Congress.
He is now like a hen with one chick,
tremendously interested in his one bill,
and I say that without any reflection at
all upon him, but simply to give empha¬
sis to his suddenly awakened maternal
interest in his long-neglected chick.
Very well; I will go along as quickly
as it is humanly possible to consider the
St. Lawrence seaway bill. When I say
humanly possible I must respond to
my other responsibilities in the Senate,
and I want to get rid of the river and
harbor bill, and I want to get rid of the
flood-control bill before there is any
report to be made on the St. Lawrence
seaway. That is my view of it.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I wish to make a statement. Ex¬
cuse me, I thought the Senator had
concluded.
Mr. OVERTON. Yes; but I should
like to proceed for a moment if the Sen¬
ator will permit.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Yes; I will
be glad to.
Mr. OVERTON. On the question of
fact arising between the Senator from
Vermont and myself I wish to ask the
Senator from North Carolina whether
my statement as to what occurred is or
is not correct.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I shall be
glad to yield to the Senator from North
Carolina for a question.
Mr. BAILEY. The statement which
the Senator from Louisiana has made
with reference to the appearance of the
Senator from Vermont and the Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. Shipstead] before
the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors
is absolutely correct. I was there and
participated in giving the information
which was necessary. They had asked
us to consider the St. Lawrence seaway
proposition, now known as the Aiken bill,
while we were considering the river and
harbor bill as it come over from the
House. The St. Lawrence seaway bill
was an entirely separate bill. It was not
offered as an amendment. Meantime
the subcommittee on the St. Lawrence
seaway bill, that is, the Aiken bill, had
been appointed. So the Senators were
informed that our subcommittee then
sitting, that is, the Subcommittee on Riv¬
ers and Harbors of the Commerce Com¬
mittee, had no jurisdiction. I thought
that settled it. I did not have the slight¬
est impression that anyone was offended.
I thought the two Senators, when ap¬
prised of the situation, were perfectly
satisfied.
Now it seems that the matter of delay
has been brought up here. There has
been delay in connection with the con¬
sideration of the St. Lawrence seaway,
but the delay is not due to the Committee
on Commerce nor is it due to the sub¬
committee of the Committee on Com¬
merce. I think it may be well for me
to state that there is a fixed rule in the
Committee on Commerce. I do not have
to apply the rule every time a bill comes
up, but the clerk is instructed that when¬
ever any bill comes up with which any
department of the Government has to do,
the bill is at once sent to that department
of government for its advice. We never
bring a bill to the floor and never bring a
bill before the committee until we have
heard from the department concerned.
That rule was followed in this case. But
it happened to be that a great many de¬
partments were interested in the matter.
I must say I do not know how many such
departments there were.
This procedure was followed: I think
about 2 weeks or 10 days after the bill
came to the committee it was sent to the
Department of State. We asked for the
advices of the Secretary of State. I
think we received some advices about 7
months later. I think the request was
made in September, and the advices
came in April. But in that matter I am
going by the record which was printed
by the Senator from Louisiana, It hap¬
pened, however, that there were other
departments — the War Department, the
Navy Department, and the Department
of Commerce, and I think even other
departments — I will not undertake to say
how many — which were interested in
the subject. They took their time, and
I had to write the second time to several
of them and tell them we would like to
have their views.
Mr. President, it may be news to some,
but in the Commerce Committee I pro¬
ceed on the thoroughgoing understand¬
ing that this is a Government of co-
8502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 24
ordinated powers. When we receive a
bill we send it to the department con¬
cerned in order to coordinate. I believe
1 can also say that since the day when
I succeeded Senator Copeland, my late
lamented friend, as chairman of the
committee — and that was in 1938, or a
little more than 6 years ago — there never
has been a bill delayed in the Com¬
merce Committee. Such a thing as
pigeonholing a bill never occurred to me.
If I do not like a bill I consider it my
duty to have the committee pass on it.
I believe we keep current, certainly
within 30 days of winding up the calen¬
dar at all times. The idea that any sub¬
committee chairman or the chairman of
the committee could suppress a bill there
is totally abhorrent to me. The bills are
brought out. They are referred to sub¬
committees. We have standing subcom¬
mittees. If a subcommittee does not re¬
port within 30 days, I request to know
why. So there has been nothing what¬
ever to justify the insinuation made here
or the suspicions which have been
uttered.
I wish to say another word. I re¬
quested the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
Overton] to serve as chairman of the
committee on the St. Lawrence seaway.
I had theretofore requested him to serve
as chairman of the Subcommittee .-on
Rivers and Harbors and also as chair¬
man of the Subcommittee on Flood Con¬
trol. That was considerable responsi¬
bility to repose in one man, but I did not
do it to compliment him. I did not do it
out of any sense of favoritism, either.
I did so because I consider him one of
the most elevated men I have ever known.
Furthermore, he is a very excellent
lawyer; and, in addition, ever since he
has been in the Senate he has made a
specialty of river and harbor, flood con¬
trol, and seaway matters.
I did it also because I have never
known a more diligent worker than the
Senator from Louisiana. I really felt
ashamed of myself last summer. I saw
him conducting hearings day after day
through the hot weather. He suggested
to me that he intended to call the com¬
mittee together in September to con¬
sider the St. Lawrence seaway, and he
undertook to do so. We agreed on the
date, which was to be about the 20th of
September, but that was during the re¬
cess. I could not be present, and other
Senators could not be present. We all
know that the campaign was approach¬
ing. We all felt the need of rest. That
is the summary. There has been abso¬
lutely no delay, and no intention to sup¬
press anything. No one can And the
slightest evidence of any delay on the
part of the Senator from Louisiana.
Such delay as we have had has been de¬
lay in receiving reports from the depart¬
ments. Certainly I do not wish to bring
a bill before the Senate and then apolo¬
gize for not having the views of the de¬
partments most concerned.
I should like to say something further
about the Senator from Louisiana. I
read these campaign statements for the
first time after the distinguished Sena¬
tor from Vermont brought them forward.
In the first place, we may say generally
that anyone who takes campaign politi¬
cal advertisements seriously is in need of
a guardian. I thought that was well
understood in America.
However, I am willing to underwrite
those statements. The Senator from
Louisiana deserves the confidence of his
fellow Senators, the praise of his con¬
stituents, and the gratitude of his coun¬
try for his enormous and indefatigable
labors. I deeply regret that he should
be made the subject of an attack here.
In June he received from the Democratic
side of the Senate — I can understand
why our friends across the aisle are
under some inhibitions in a campaign —
one of the greatest tributes of which I
have ever known. I believe it has no
parallel in the history of the Senate.
He announced that he did not intend to
run for the Senate again, and when he
did so, 43 Senators signed a petition ad¬
dressed to him urging him to run and
saying that we needed him in the Sen¬
ate. I do not think the petition was
circulated across the aisle, not because
members of the opposition party would
not have been willing to sign it, but be¬
cause it is a very difiBcult thing to ask.
I think it would be improper to ask a
member of the Republican Party to
support a Democrat, even in Louisiana,
where we know that the nomination
amounts to an election. If the petition
had been circulated throughout the Sen¬
ate, I believe that it would have received
80 or 90, or perhaps even 95 signatures.
There he stands. He has lived and
worked with us all these years. He has
worked alongside me in the Committee
on Commerce day after day and year
after year. I wish to say to him that he
should not be disturbed. The founda¬
tions of our respect and confidence are
not to be taken away by the pride of a
rooster, or even an old hen carrying
around a little chicken.
I like to think sometimes about the
deeper things. Men do build their char¬
acters and their lives on the rock, and
the storms may come and the winds may
blow, but the house stands. Let me say
to the Senator from Louisiana that the
house of his character and the house of
the high esteem in which he lives by
our assent, will stand the tornadoes and
hurricanes. He need not be troubled
at the little superficial criticisms and
quarrels which blow around the great
rock. They are but fleeting breaths of
the moment.
The great winds blow across the
world. Today we breathe air which 3
days ago was in the South Pacific. To¬
morrow we shall breathe air which
crossed the Sahara Desert 4 days ago;
and another day we shall be breathing
air which comes from the Arctic. The
great winds and hurricanes may come,
and we may have local tornadoes; but it
would require something more than the
breath of suspicion, or the attack of a
momentary and personal impatience,
even to make the Senator from I^uisiana
aware that a breeze was stirring.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, the illuminative questions asked
me by the Senator from Louisiana and
the Senator from North Carolina, which
really do not require an answer, obviate
the necessity of any statement on my
part.
Mr, MITiTiTKIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I shall be
glad to yield the floor as soon as I yield
to the Senator from Colorado, although
I realize that I yield the floor when I
yield to him.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I should like to ask
the distinguished Senator to yield to me
for the purpose of submitting a non-
controversial amendment.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am glad to
yield for that purpose, and then I shall
be glad to yield the floor,
Mr. MILLIKIN. On behalf of the
distinguished senior Senator from Colo¬
rado [Mr. Johnson] and myself, I offer
an amendment which I send to the desk
and ask to have read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 16, at the
end of line 20, it is proposed to change
the period to a colon and add the fol¬
lowing; “Provided, That the project may
be modified to include storage in reser¬
voirs upstream from Trinidad if the Sec¬
retary of War and the Chief of Engineers
find such action advisable for flood con¬
trol and in order to make more water
readily available for agricultural and in¬
dustrial uses without impairment of flood
control for Trinidad.”
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, the
engineers have made a study -
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, is the
Senator now offering that amendment?
Mr. MILLIKIN. I am offering it now
because I understand that there will be
no objection to it, and I wished to get
it behind us.
Mr. OVERTON. There is an amend¬
ment ripe for action, namely, the com¬
mittee amendment on page 4, after line
13. Has that amendment been acted
upon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair advises the Senator from Louisiana
that that amendment is pending at this
time.
Mr. OVERTON. I believe that all dis¬
cussion is completed in reference to that
amendment, and that all the Chair would
need to do would be to put the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered on behalf of the committee,
on page 4 after line 13.
The amendment was agreed to,
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, we
have had a bad flood condition at Trini¬
dad, and the engineers have devised what
they think are preventive measures,
which are largely confined to the city of
Trinidad. When further studies are
made It may seem advisable to build a
dam or two which might also have ir¬
rigation significance upstream from
Trinidad. As I understand, the amend¬
ment which I have offered would not in¬
crease the cost. It has the approval of
the engineers, and I understand that the
distinguished senior Senator from Loui¬
siana will consent to the amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Has the Senator a
copy of the amendment? I have not had
an opportunity to read it. Perhaps it
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
would be better to have the amendment
go over.
Mr. MILUKIN. Very well.
The PRESIDING OPnCER. The
amendment will be printed and lie on
the table.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, 1 had not
Intended to say anything further in reply
to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
Overton] and the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Bailey]. I did not under¬
stand that they said anything which re¬
futed what I read. I read quotations
from statements or addresses by the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana himself.
However, in respect to one matter
which was brought up, the Senator from
Louisiana disagreed with me. That was
the statement I have made, that I had
asked for some time — an hour — before
the Committee on Commerce for the pur¬
pose of offering the St. Lawrence seaway
measure as an amendment to the river
and harbor bill. The Senator from
Louisiana disagrees with me, and he says
I made no statement as to that. If the
Senator from Minnesota were present,
he would agree with me that we appeared
before the committee for the purpose of
getting our request on the ofQcial record.
The oflQcial reporter took it down, be¬
cause several persons watched him take
it down. Yet, when the report of the
hearings came out, the statements I had
made were not in the hearings. I think
the only way to settle the question as to
whether the Senator from Louisiana is
right or whether I am righh^-and I think
I am — would be to get the original notes
of the reporter and have the exact state¬
ment printed in the Record, where all of
us could see it.
One other thing which I would sug¬
gest is that the Senator from North
Carolina submit to us, for the Record,
the request he made of the various de¬
partments for report on the St. Law¬
rence bill, so that all of us may learn
on what dates the requests were made.
I realize that some of them came in
late. But I realize that in April it was
announced that all the reports were in,
and 2 or 3 months later it was an¬
nounced that there were some yet to
come in. I wonder whether some of the
requests were made after the others
were made.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I think
that may be true. We did not know how
many departments were interested at
first, and I am not prepared to say to just
what departments we wrote. On the
whole matter, the usual routine was fol¬
lowed. The bill came in. When a bill-
comes in, the clerk sends it to the de¬
partment which we think is concerned.
But if, later on, another department ex¬
presses a desire to be heard, we write to
that department. No one is denied an
opportunity to be heard. But I cannot
tell when a bill first comes to the com¬
mittee how many departments will desire
to come before the committee regard¬
ing it.
My impression is that the Navy De¬
partment and the War Department were
belated in letting us know they were
Interested. My impression was that the
only departments Interested were the
Commerce Department and the State
Department — the Secretary of State.
But I would not be able to say how many
departments answered.
However, if the Senator wishes to go
to the committee room and see the
record, he will be welcome to do so.
Mr. AIKEN. In view of the Senator’s
statement that the requests very likely
were made from time to time of the vari¬
ous departments, I withdraw any request
I made that the letters be presented.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, I call up
a noncontroversial amendment relating
to Leatherwood Creek, Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
Mr. BURTON. As I have said, Mr.
President, there is nothing controversial
about the amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 38, be¬
tween lines 11 and 12, it is proposed to
insert the following:
Leatherwood Creek, Ohio, with particular
reference to flood control and water supply
for Cambridge, Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ohio.
The amendment was agreed to.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, it is
apparent that we can accomplish very
little more, if anything, this evening; and
the hour is now late. Therefore I move
that the Senate proceed to consider exec¬
utive business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider executive
business.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hill
in the chair) laid before the Senate a
message from the President of the United
States submitting sundry nominations,
which was referred to the appropriate
committee.
(For nominations this day received, see
the end of Senate proceedings.)
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following favorable reports of
nominations were submitted;
By Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts, from
the Committee on Naval Affairs:
Sundry officers for appointment and/or
promotion for temporary service In the Navy
and the Naval Reserve.
By Mr. CHANDLER, from the Committee
on Military Affairs:
Sundry officers for temporary appointment
in the Army of the United States, under the
provisions of law.
. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there
be no further reports of committees, the
clerk will state the nominations on the
calendar.
FOREIGN SERVICE
The legislative clerk read the nomi¬
nation of Jefferson Caffery, of Louisiana,
to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Prance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With¬
out objection, the nomination is con¬
firmed.
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Waldo E. Bailey, of Mississippi,
to be Foreign Service ofiQcer of class 7,
8503
a secretary In the Diplomatic Service,
and a consul of the United States of
America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With¬
out objection, the nomination is con¬
firmed.
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA— NOMINATION
PASSED OVER
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Guy Mason, of the District of
Columbia, to be Commissioner of the Dis¬
trict of Columbia for a term of 3 years,
and until his successor is appointed and
qualified.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I have no
personal objection to the confirmation of
the nomination, but at the instance of
another Member of the Senate I am
obliged to ask that the nomination go
over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
nomination will be passed over.
DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR, REG¬
ISTER OP LAND OFFICE— NOMINATION
PASSED OVER
The legislative clerk read the nomi¬
nation of Richard McElligott of Rose-
burg, Oreg., to be register of the land
office.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in view
of the fact that the senior Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Holman] was not present
when the nomination was considered in
the committee, and the fact that I under¬
stand he will be present when the Senate
meets next week, I ask that the nomina¬
tion be passed over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
nomination will be passed over.
That completes the calendar.
Mr. OVERTON. I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the President be immediately
notified of the confirmation of the nomi¬
nations acted upon today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the President will be notified
forthwith of all nominations confirmed
today.
RECESS TO MONDAY
Mr. OVERTON. As in legislative ses¬
sion, I move that the Senate take a re¬
cess until Monday next at 12 o’clock noon.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 4
o’clock and 36 minutes p. m.) the Senate
took a recess until Monday, November 27,
1944, at 12 o’clock meridian.
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate, November 24 (legislative day of
November 21), 1944;
Postmasters
The following -named persons to be post¬
masters :
ARKANSAS
Myrtle Cunningham, Callon, Ark. Office
became Presidential July 1, 1943.
Howard E. Powell, Gurdon, Ark., in place
of I. A. Blakely, resigned.
HAWAII
Arthur Chong Kong, Halaula, T. H. Office
became Presidential July 1, 1943.
IDAHO
Verna Uletta Olson, Pruitland, Idaho, In
place of L. R. Hollenbeck, retired.
Wo. 162 - S
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8504
INDIANA
Bessie Boston, Lewis. Ind. Office became
Presidential July 1, 1944.
MAINE
Pearl S. Robinson, Chebeague Island,
Maine. Office became Presidential July 1,
1944.
MARYLAND
Gilbert P. Murphy, Laurel, Md., in place
of E, H. S. Boss, resigned.
MICHIGAN
M. Adele Zinger, Ruth, Mich., in place of
A. C. Cook, resigned.
MINNESOTA
Earl L. LaPorte, Pillager, Minn., in place
of C. E. McNair, resigned.
MISSOURI
Opal B. McCann, Cooter, Mo, Office be¬
came Presidential July 1, 1943.
Edward R. Sinnott, Edina, Mo., in place of
Charles Shumate, retired.
Maude M. Fleming, Graham, Mo. Office
became Presidential July 1, 1944.
MONTANA
Oscar L. Henry, Belfry, Mont. Office be¬
came Presidential July 1, 1943.
NEW JERSEY
Peter Klapmuts, Oak Ridge, N. J, Office
became Presidential July 1, 1944.
NEW YORK
Thomas J. Tighe, Jr., Amsterdam, N. T., In
place of W. A. Gardner, deceased.
John A. Bush, Hartwick, N. Y., in place of
C. O. Weidman, deceased.
Prances A. Kinney, Locke, N. Y., in place
of G. S. Mackey, transferred.
Helen M. Cronk, Staatsburg, N. Y., in place
of J. J. Flnan, removed...
PENNSYLVANIA
Howard C. Phllson, Berlin, Pa., in place of
E. B. Walker, deceased.
Frederick E. Riegner, Garrett Hill, Pa. Of¬
fice became Presidential July 1, 1944.
Anna C. O’Mara, Laceyville, Pa., in place Of
J. J. O’Mara, deceased.
Joseph T. Qualters, McKeesport, Pa., in
place of Alexander Rankin, deceased.
Blrtus B. McDowell, Mineral Springs, Pa.
Office became Presidential July 1, 1944.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert R. Du Rant, Jr., Manning, S. C., in
place of J. S. Bagnal, transferred.
November 24, 1944
TEXAS
Ruth Finley, Aquilla, Tex. Office became
Presidential July 1, 1944.
Catherine H. Bannister, Old Ocean, Tex.
Office became Presidential October 1, 1944.
Jesse M. Robbins, RaymondvUle, Tex., in
place of L. O. Robbins, resigned.
Nelson G. Hargett, Weslaco, Tex., in place
of Clifton Davenport, resigned.
WISCONSIN
Leona R. Johnson, Danbury, Wls., in place
■of L. R. Baker, resigned.
CONFIRMATTONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate November 24 (legislative day
of November 21 ) , 1944 :
Foreign Service
Jefferson Caffery to be Ambassador Extraor¬
dinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to France. ^
Waldo E. Bailey to be Foreign Service offi¬
cer of class 7, a secretary in the Diplomatic
Service, and a consul of the United States of
America.
I
4^
OFFICE OF BUDGET aITO FIERCE
Legislative Reports and Service Section
7Sth-2nd, Eo. I63
DIGEST OF PEOCESDIEGS OF COEGRESS 'OF lETEREST TG THE EEPaRTMSET OF AGRICULTURE
(issued EovemLer 2&, , for .action^ of J!4anday, EQvem'ber py^ IQUU’I _
(F
l^iL grants- in aid . .10
Adraini s t-ra't Tve
Advertising . 21
Appropriations . 7
Asst.- Secs, of, State. . .12
Commodity Credit. 20
Dairy industry. . . . . 25
Siectrif ic§,tion. . 26
Epcunation . 2
or staff of 'tile Department
.COETEETS
Flood control. . i . . . . . .1
Forestry . . . . ; . . i'.. .S
"'GUvei’nDipnt restaurants. .6
Insect control'^ . ... .13
Lator . It
Land acquisition. . . . . i . . 9
Lend-lease . . 22
Personnel . 5> H
Transiiortation. . .IS, 23 > 28
• SEEATB •
only)
Post-war planning. . I7
Proiierty managoment . 19
Roads . 28
St. Lawrence ifaterway. . .18
Secretary of ^tate.. . 2
'Small business . l6,17
taxation . »15i 27
Under Secretary of l.^ar..l4
•'Veterans. . . 4
\
t
t
2.
FLOOD -CpETROL. Continued delate on H. R. 4485-, the f lood-c.ontrol hill (pp.
8541-53). ^ •' , • ■
Rejected the committee amendments estahlishing a Missouri River Commis¬
sion to plan, construct, operate, and maintain flood-control and navigation
improvements on the Missouri River (pp. 8543-6), and .giving, the War Department
control over private dams, etc. (pp. 8546-51).
.Agreed to amendments by Sen. Milliken, Colo., to permit tue Trinidad
project'to be modified to include storage in upstream reservoirs (p. 8552).
,.Sen. Maybank, S. C., inserted a letter which he received from REA.
discussing the probable effects of Sen. Bailey’s amendment to Sec. 5 (pP-
8539-40). _ ...
During' the Eov. 24 debate on this bill the Senate agreed to the amend¬
ment authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of surplus' electric
energy, in the form in which the amendment was- originally reported to the
Senate (p. 85O2) . (Digest I62 inadvertently stated that the comm.ittee amend¬
ment was rejected.)
mi. . me
SECRETARY OF STaTE, EOMINATIOE. Received the President’s nomination of Edward
R. Stettinius to be Secretary of State (pp. 856O, 8571)*
3. ADMIEISTRAEIVE law. Sen. Maloney, C.onn., Inserted a Hartford Chamber of Com¬
merce resolution favoring H. R. 50SI and S. 2O3O, administrative-law bills
(pp. 8537-8)..
4. VETERdES’ REEMPLO YI4EET . _ Military Affairs Commi.tt.e.e reported with amendments
H. R. 53^6, to amend the Selective Training ai3..d’''Service ACt so as to extend
the; tim-e within which application may be made for reemployment. (S. Rept. II96,.
P.- 8538).
5. GAREISHMEET, ETC. D. C. Committee reported without amendment H. R. 2116, to
amend the D. C. laws relating to exemptionpof property from judicial process,
the assignment of salary or wages, and the advance payment of salary or wages
for the purpose of preventing attachment or garnishment (S.: Rept ,. 1199, P.853^)*
6. GOVEREIIEET’ RESTAtlRAETS . D. C. Committee reported, without amendment- H. R.- 4867,
to extend the health regulations of D. C. to Government restaurants in D. C.
(S. Rept. 1206, p. 8538).
I
- 2 -
HOUSE
t^PLJMEUTAL APPROPRIATIOHS. The following are among the estimates which have
^en received- and referred to the -Appropriations Committee;
Civil Service Commission, $3,069,500 (H. Doc. 775, Hov. 20).
Warehousing, HHA, $20,000,000 (H, Doc. 776. Hov. 20).
Contrihution hy State Department to Inter- American Institute of Agricultural
Sci^ces, $90,087,97 (2. Doc. 777, Wov. 2l)o
■Program\of cultural relations with China and neighboring countries. Hear
East, ard Africa, by the State department in cooperation yith other Govern¬
ment agefspies, $600,000 (H. Doc. 76O, Hov. l4) .
8.
EDRESTRY. On objeptions by Reps. Priest, Madden,, and Price
abolish the Jackson Hole Rational Monument and restore the
H. R.‘224i, to
area to the Teton
Rational Eorest, was stricken from the Consent Calendar (p.'8576)*
9. LilID ACQJISITIOR. At the request of Rep. Cole, R. Yi., passed' over S, 919, 'to
expedite the payment for land acquired during the; war period (p»‘857^)»
10. A. A. A. GRARTS-IR-AID. At thie^ request of Rep., Kean, R. J. , passed over H,- R.
3405, to regulate the distribiation of fertilizers, feeds, nursery stock, and
seeds by U. S. agencies (p.
11..ALIER EMPLOTMERT. At the request ’of Rep./ Kean, R. J., passed over H. R,. 29O8,
to amend Public Law 537, 77'th Cong, , 9-6 as to -permit payment- -to aliens employed
^n g oodg^aith as to citizenship stat^ after the close of the fiscal year 1942
12. ASSISTART SECRETARIES OE STATE, P^^ssed -with an amendment H,- R. 4311, to provide
for the appointment of tvro addi-b!-5.'onal Assistant Secretaries of State ’’for the
period of 2 years following cessation of hcstiliti es*' (p. 8576)*
/
13.
IRSECT CORTROL, On objection' of Rep. Kean,-^ R. J., -passed over H. R. 2542, for ^
■ the relief of certain claijjft’ants who suffered lasses and su-stained damages as "
a. result of the Mediterranean fruitfly eradication campaign (p..8577)'’
14. URDSR SECRETARY OF W.iR,;' Passed without amendment H,-:,R. 5494, amending the law
ap.thcr-.Tiing the -appointment of an Under Secretary of' War,' by extending the
. appointment for the^/uuration and 6 months thereafter (p, 8582).
Tile Senate Military Affairs Committee reported with amendments S. 2178,
a similar bill ( s7 Rept.- 1194) (p, 8538). . ; ;
y'
15. TAXATIOR. Rep.. Patman, Tex., criticized the proposed Constitutional amendment
that would "h'estrict the amount of taxes that Congress may ca^ise to be levied
and collect, ed by the Federal Governxaent" (pp. 8585-6).., i. :
16. mmj BusiiEss. Banking and Currency Committee reported without aihendment -
S. 2004, to increase the capital stock issue of the Smaller War Plants Corpora¬
tion from $150,000,000 to $350,000,000 (H. Rept. 1939) (p. S590).
'f' ' COMMITTEE HF/vRIRGS Released by G.P.O ' '
17.. PC7sT-WAR PLARRIRG;., SMALL BUSIRF-SS. Pursuant to S-'Res*-' 66f to provide fer a
study and survey of small 'business problems ^ Pt5.-43 and 44.... dfive£lp^i.ng
Vest through Small Business. Senate Sr.iall Business Committee* ■ ' ' ,
7»rH CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
November 27 (legislative clay, Noa^mber 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Cordon to the biU (H. K.
4485), with amendments, as reported by the Committee on
Commerce, authorizing the construction of certain pubhc
works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes, viz:
1 On page 4, hne 11, after the period insert the following:
2 “No use of any area to which this section applies shall be
3 permitted which is inconsistent with the laws for the protec-
4 tion of fish and game of the State in which such area is
5 situated.’’
11-27-44 - A
o
O
c
•-s
a
(t>
hi
B
(T>
P3
Qd
P
r^
tc
O
H-
fD
o
O
^3.
B
rt*
P
B-
!->•
(D
<J
rD
P
Cd
2
(0
p
p
o
<1
O
cr
W
P3
CD
P
to
2.
M
B
(“h
<x>
l-A
Di
CO
rfi.
CD
t— ' p
o
h-* • ^
o C
y
rt-
r-h
»-{
O
1— d
2 2.
P
h--
P-t
r s-
o CfQ
h-b
P frt-
►— j
O
H-
2. ^
O
;r*H_
CD
-d o
CD O
l-S 3
f» cc
p ►d
P
^ S
2-
1=^ 9
o
p P
ca:
CD
w
CP 2
O
O p:;
i-s Pl,
S'
^ ^ ^
^ w -
cr' ®
'<J W g"
2: ^
00 o
m ^73
s
2 ^ S
2. &
5
S
<T> ^
CD
I-J o
W CD
P
P S
Q g
O rf
B ^
CD
3 •
& O
ts o
CD W
“ a
o
CD^
2 c
a w O
- S ^
.CD 2 s;
PI
2
0
§
w
"Z
H
00
H
IC w
si
U1
XJl
i4^
00
ai
78th CONGEESS
2d Sessiois
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 27 (legislative day, November 21), 1944
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENTS
Intended to be proposed by Mr. Cordon to the bill (H. E. 4485)
with amendments, as reported by the Committee on Com¬
merce, authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,
viz:
1 On page 3, line 11, after the words “Secretary of War,”
2 insert the following: “in cooperation with other Federal
3 agencies” followed by a comma.
4 On page 3, line 12, after the words “operate public
5 park” insert a comma and the word “conservation”.
6 On page 3, line 15, after the period insert the following:
I
7 “All dams or other works authorized to be constructed Ijy
8 this Act shall include suitable or necessary means and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
measures, as approved by the Tish and Wildlife Service,
to prevent loss of and damage to fish or aquatics dependent
upon the waters affected hy such dams or other works and
to carry out the purposes of the provisions of the Act
of March 10, 1934 (48 Stat. 401; 16 U. S. C., sec. 663).
The cost of planning for and the construction or installation
of any such means and measures shall be included in and
shall constitute an integral part of the costs of the dams or
other works and necessary investigations to carry out these
requirements shall be conducted by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in cooperation with the War Department. The Sec-
retarv of War is authorized and directed to transfer to the
*/
Department of the Interior, for the use of the Fish and Wild-
fife Service, out of any appropriations hereafter made for
the purpose of carr3ung out the provisions of this Act or
any part thereof such funds as may he necessary to conduct
the required investigations. The reports and recommen¬
dations submitted by the Secretary of the Interior resulting
from the surveys and investigations of the Fish and Wildlife
Service shall constitute a part of any and all engineering
*
survey reports and recommendations submmitted to the Con¬
gress or to any committee thereof by the Secretary of War.”
11-27-44 - B
. _' ' •■ ‘ ..^Jf •• . =
-4^^.: :./- , ‘'-v- • ■ ’ ' ■'■•
' ^ - . ’ 'lA V '
— ^ j , I ^ • A V" ^/ •
»«r->7.-.i V / i-
"•'-‘(r.v--' ''v: ■ '■
■- ;■ ■' '"-■- •
■ J'
.-'■ri ■'
r ' . '' : ■ ■*c- .t
•'■. •';•'■• .\' -4. *
■'• . -:kV./7 ..' :. ■ '>
K . •
♦»
.»* -v -, ■- j ^ y
. #* . »■; - ».
\ ' X‘ K *s.
'
V ■• Y\r ■
r*' ■ * .'•»•,.• ' ••
.♦(
a'
•.- .i*
' . - K*
If^v-
"r‘- O.-?.' '■
4, , ,1
iWJ* ^ •*, J .' N\fc '.
Afc .', •’. , •
■‘ ' . • I
. f ,
.rl *n
'■r:' . ^’.r ...
. ■/.'
> ."v.. . '-K '•i.v, - '
-■'• ' ' ■.' '
! y'.-'’ > '“ JV:'
T||K'7’.' : •• -■ * ■.■,^,1'l^*. .■'■'•> r'^s ' •'''' I ■• 1 '■ ■■■’’'
;.■'/■ ,r V • v*/. - ' , • .;
( . * .V ,. .:V- ■ .<1
! '• v\'.v " .. '■ •■'.,■ ■■^■■!. ■ .
-t ■ 9:“' ■’ •.' .-il.:.' s^.., ^ . -.N- ".t;, ■’ .^ rv.'i ■■■ '■- /■' •T'- •,•, 1 V* i"
.■ ‘.■■■•' :'*> ■ ' r'-.u : ' J*'' «:v2:- , ' • ' ';■','►•>• 'v , ■ , •■ ‘
--ir' ' r.‘ ^ i- . '- /<.. ■'•
f-' ^ ir.-’i i ^ '-k^ ' / • . ■-:. : , ■
&- ■ / • V r‘7^'-ai V ■V' •* ' ‘ ■ . y ».• .* i , •* Jt'i*' j
‘ .V'i'.'*'
■ ■'
/.’ - ■ ,4Ali,-.-^ . fc-r ••> iC/.:; ■'ll' ,.' '.■. •■' . L' '•■’’■ < r ’
' y" .‘■, ■' ■■ '*r ■ y-’ • ■.■ ‘vj "• .•'. v/ -
n . ■ ''.’!• t&'. ■•:■' . (i •• •*! ' - r •''■•■ ' ' ■■ '■-jy,-*. ■ . •
■rr
; , JT^ » < .’ .* **- , . , . . J 1 , - ’ ,:i. , , ^ . . iV ' •, . V'.- • , ►
.■■v.:r V .^V: ^ v>' • ■■• -•'. 1 .•■ ••
■ ■ * -'f ' ‘.-J '■■*;- ■'■ '. ■ ; j , ' •■,■.' ■' ■ - ■'.• . ■ ■
-v V' Y \> ... >• : ;■}: ' ... ,
•■ ' " ■’ y. 1- y ! y . •;■’** y - ■ ,' ,.■ >■.■' . . • . ' a
vm’. I.. :• '» ».■ . y. »• O . .• • ■; -- ' i . ■.* '■ ‘ ; . ‘
'V. ■' ; Y'.^
- . .' J IeY
■ . i I,. . i - ^ ; ■- .V4 > A . . • • > ■ ''■' - ■ ■■ ' ^ ■ ' .’•. 1 . ' . '
' ■ ll t >; ' f ' ^3' i * • ri * V ’ ** * ' ^ ^ * ' . * V * V ■ \ • , ^
H;;.. i.* #■ ■• • ji.'i, X '.ii* •>'* * -I »*. • . '
-vvJ-;V' '- 7.-
■-■- f ' Uv'."^' ■■■•, Y 'V-'C; ■ ,! . !■ j*'*,. .y7.v;-- - - i' Y ■
■» i /'- >1^
•*• yj/" ii\' ' ' ’ ' ' 'r^ . ''■r” "■ ■ I *’ — t '- ^
i-y vt . SAy Y- :| -ry ; ; ; . , r . , - / ■ ; ,
^ 1, ‘ . “i .* 7"* * tl V' * ,■»' . t *VV'' *“ *
■■■.,.. ■'■■ ■ '"■• • '■ ■ ' . ■ ■.'i; ' -A- . , - ' .
/'-..V V . ^•7 ■■' .AI^'.AY. '. '•I'. -.v ^
t-. * ':i%:.‘y:y7 i'-' • ' ■’'■'.^yV '*
r.Y.f'
vYY > -
^r•
;.a;?.7 ' "^'-" ’77 7/ ;: ,7. 7^- :•/ 'y .^. 'V'7': VvyAA- 7 ' ;.V .-•/■:
, Y /A, .YYy''' s'y Yv\' •YYy''''''-Y'.'7yyY'5ij''®^; . ' ' ; -Yy;;:
c, Y ^ YvAyy^^ y ; ■ 7- y. ">' ■ . .? a i
• ' ^ V ■ l' ' .. t- '• . ( ■ ,•■..■ . , , ' . y.' . 1
? ■ •■ i;/Y'..V • r: .•• --Y''' '■■ 'fj* -.A •..AV,.,\.. ' • -•
» A
.' 7.'-. :
K'
/VT
■7
• ^ . I
1. ■>
■■•Am,.
• '
■ ■•' A ■ ■''■ ■:. t '
Jl »
•' ** il *'
V ‘ A
- • 1 • .
...Yv • '•
I
A, Yy'-yYYY; . • v'y^AyAyA y'. :
. ' -r a7; ay aa^nV-a/avA;),;..',: -.y •■•-.■■ --y.VA ^ .-.A^A -a.. ‘ ^hiAvy
, •• .. :y 'a 77 7viJ:^5’A,7V ■■'•.•;■■; - • ■. ;
p'L777'^:^;7yA 7V: 7 , ■ *7':7A"jg|
C-.Y.'j, i; , yY A'- '•' Y*V,; ,. ; v. „ .. ^.‘ I .....:2m . ' ..-'iv
- ■^, , « *^* *'^ - ' Yi4' v ! y . . "rt Y ft* * ■ -y > * ‘ ' ' »i '
Ay a ii * ifekcjjYC ■■ A-4iir»^A : .- .: .. . y » -.
s
f. y <9bI
I -t
1
I
o
a>
O
<
cd
R
50
to
o
orq
s
<
:z!
§
R
CO
R
50
to
CO
§
^ <
O o
H-* h->
g »
& o
1-h ^
T |_|-
■ri
a>
<s
(TP
^ fO
^ S
o
ri'
O
i/3
<15
m
>-t
D"
O
Hb
o
tas
o
o
&
O
<r4“
CO
p
CO
o
CO
a.
n.
P-‘
w
n’
o
crci
o'
(J>
rt-
►43^ 'T3
(t)
CO
00
d
O
o
Ot >73
O
o
Cfi
c
3
Cfi
<t>
Q-
3_
a"
O
*^-
^<1
O*
3
CO
CO
P
CO
r-j
o
Hb
on
p
o .
O
O
P
o
CO
O
2
»
a
o
r+-
o
P
3
Cfi
5‘
CD
P
CO
O
o"
1
•-s
CO
CO
h-
CO
1
P"^
CO
>
n
z
D
m
z
H
Vi
00
H
N5W
ccQ
B O
tB Z
rn ^
!»
OQ
4^
00
Ul (
i*. 1
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8541
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the considera¬
tion of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing
the construction of certain public works
on rivers and hai’bors for flood control,
and for other purposes.
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I have
received a telegram from R. T. Willette,
manager, Kansas City, Kans., chamber
of commerce, which sets forth the views
of his group with regard to the pending
measure, H. R. 4485. I ask unanimous
consent to have the telegram printed
in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
Kansas City, Kans.,
Noveniber 24, 1944.
Hon. AaTHiTR Capper,
United States Senator,
Washington, D. C.:
Board of directors of this chamber of com¬
merce urges your support of H. R. 4485 which
Is In support of the Pick plan for conserva¬
tion and flood control on the Missouri River
and which as we understand it has now
been amended and approved by the Com¬
merce OBmmittee of the Senate for passage.
Would appreciate reply.
B. T. Willette.
Manager, Kansas City, Kans.,
Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I have
also received a telegram from R. W. Mc¬
Clure, a leading businessman of Kansas,
and president of the Kansas Electric
Power Co., urging favorable considera¬
tion of an amendment to paragraph 5 of
House bill 4485, and I ask that the tele¬
gram be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
Lawrence, Kans., November 24, 1944.
Hon. Arthur. W. Capper,
Senate Office Building:
We feel that amendment to H. R. 4485,
omnibus flood-control bill which amendment
revises paragraph 5 of that bill and which
was approved by the Senate Commerce Com¬
mittee and is being introduced by Senator
Bailey is much more fair and equitable than
present provisions in paragraph 5 of bill
and urgently rejquest your support for such
amendment.
R. W. McClure,
President, The Kansas Electric Power Co.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will state the next amendment of the
committee passed over.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, line 13,
after the word “Department”, it is pro¬
posed to insert “Provided, That no sale
of such water shall adversely affect then
Existing lawful uses of such water.”
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
should like to have the amendment stated
again.
The amendment was again stated.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I inquire
whose amendment this is?
The VICE PRESIDENT. It is a com¬
mittee amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, this
committee amendment, together with
other committee amendments and cer¬
tain other provisions of the bill, have
been the subject matter of considerable
discussion and interviews between the
proponents of the so-called O’Mahoney
amendment and the committee and rep¬
resentatives of the committee. We have,
I think, practically agreed upon a proper
amendment which should apply to all
matters in controversy, although there
has not been a final agreement. I sug¬
gest that the amendment be passed
over until we arrive at a final agree¬
ment.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the amendment will be passed
over.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I could
not hear what the Senator from Louis¬
iana stated a few moments ago. I un¬
derstood it was something about an
agreement. Will he not restate what he
said?
Mr. OVERTON. I stated that with re¬
spect to the particular amendment just
read, and with regard to certain other
amendments relating to the Missouri
Valley Basin, an agreement had practi¬
cally been entered into between the pro¬
ponents of the O’Mahoney amendment
and representatives of the committee.
We have not yet quite perfected the ar¬
rangement, and I desire that this amend¬
ment and other amendments which re¬
late to this subject matter be passed
over for the present.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the
distinguished Senator yield for a ques¬
tion?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WHERRY. Does the agreement
the Senator just mentioned in any way
affect the committee amendment which
appears in lines 13 and 14 on page 5?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
understand that amendment has just
been adopted.
Mr. WHERRY. That Is what I am
inquiring about.
The VICE PRESIDENT. No; that
amendment, at the request of the Sena¬
tor from Louisiana, if there is no objec¬
tion, will be passed over.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I misunderstood
the situation, Mr. President.
The VICE PRESIDENT, If there is no
objection, the clerk will state the next
amendment.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I
should like to have the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana answer my ques¬
tion as to whether or not the agreement
that was made in any way affects the
committee amendment in lines 13 and
14, on page 5?
Mr. OVERTON. In my opinion, it
does.
Mr. WHERRY. Does the agreement
in any way override the committee
amendment which provides that no sale
of such water shall adversely affect the
uses of such water that are now provided
by the different States in the Missouri
Valley?
Mr. OVERTON. The agreement has
not yet been entered into, but there is a
very good prospect of it being entered
into, and I desire to have consideration
of this amendment and certain other
amendments passed over in order to de¬
termine whether or not there can be an
agreement.
Mr. WHERRY, Then it is proposed to
pass over this amendment at this time?
Mr. OVERTON. It is proposed to pass'
over the amendment at this time.
Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, before
we leave this amendment I should like to
inquire of the Senator in charge of the
bill whether or not the agreement about
which he is talking, which is supposed to
be in process of formulation, is the
amendment proposed by the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney] and
other Senators, known as the O’Mahoney
amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. With modifications
and alterations which have not as yet
been agreed upon.
Mr. MURRAY. Then the printed
amendment purporting to be the O’Ma¬
honey amendment will not be the amend¬
ment subject to the agreement?
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, we on
this side of the Chamber cannot hear
what is going on. I should like to hear
the remarks which are being made, be¬
cause I should like to know something
about the amendment, if it is still under
consideration.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend¬
ment has been passed over.
Mr. WHERRY. Very well. In any
event, however, we on this side of the
Chamber would like to hear the discus¬
sion.
Mr. OVERTON. The question pro¬
pounded to me by the Senator from
Montana [Mr. Murray] was whether or
not the last version of the O’Mahoney
amendment as now printed represented
the agreement which had been entered
into, and I told him that it would be the
basis of the agreement, but there were to
be modifications and alterations which
have not as yet been agreed upon.
Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. The Senator refers to
an agreement. An agreement between
whom?
Mr. OVERTON. An agreement be¬
tween the proponents of the amendment
and myself and other representatives of
the committee.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, wiU
the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I may say for the
benefit of all those who have cooperated
in the preparation of the amendment
which has been designated as the
O’Mahoney-Millikin amendment, that
the purpose has at all times been to
protect the historic and traditional
rights of the people of the West to use
the waters rising in the West in the man¬
ner which has been recognized by law
and by court decision for almost 100
years. It is also the purpose of those
who have been sponsoring this amend¬
ment to make certain that there shall
be the largest possible opportunity for
the public authorities of States inter¬
ested to review plans which may se-
. riously affect conditions within the
States. It has been the belief of 'the
distinguished Senator from Colorado
[Mr. Millikin] and myself and others
who have been in repeated conference
that this can be done. We believe that
November 27
8542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
our trouble is largely one of writing lan¬
guage which clearly conveys the
thoughts which are in the minds of the
distinguished chairman of the subcom¬
mittee in charge of the bill and our¬
selves.
There have been numerous confer¬
ences. There have been some minor
changes of language. Each change has
served, in my opinion, to bring us closer
to an understanding; but I want all the
Senator^ who represent \!vhat are com¬
monly called the arid-land States to
know that there has been no agreement
v.'hich sacrifices the rights of the people
of those States, and, so far as I am con¬
cerned, there will be no such agreement,
and it is my understanding that the dis¬
tinguished senior Senator from Louisi¬
ana is not asking us to make any such
sacrifices.
Mr. AII5EN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
My, OVERTON. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. Is it also the desire of
the Senator from Louisiana that the
paragraph referring to the Connecticut
River Basin go over? Because if an
agreement is reached on the O’Mahoney
amendment, it probably would auto¬
matically take care of the Connecticut
River controversy,
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator is cor¬
rect. We desire that to go over.
Mr. AIKEN. And the committee
amendment which provides “That none
of the dams herein authorized for the
Connecticut River Basin shall be utilized
for generation of hydroelectric power”
will go over?
Mr. OVERTON. All of the paragraph
will go over. All of the O’Mahoney
amendment will go over, and the com¬
mittee amendment in reference to the
Connecticut River Basin will go over,
Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. OVERTON. That will be my re¬
quest, that it go over.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. I should like to ask
the distinguished Senator from Wyo¬
ming a question with reference to his
proposed amendment. Am I to under¬
stand that this amendment, as it will be
finally formulated, will iron out all the
differences which have heretofore ex¬
isted between the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Army engineers with reference
to the water rights of the upper States of
the Missouri Valley?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I am hoping that
it will.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator could not
give us any absolute assurance?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Of course, until
there is an agreement I cannot give any¬
one an assurance as to what the con¬
tents of the agreement will be.
Mr. MURRAY. The Senator has
found it very difficult in his efforts in
the past to bring about this agreement
to obtain any satisfactory response; is
that not true?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; that is not
true. As a matter of fact, I think we
have had a very satisfactory response.
The difficulty, as I said a moment ago,
comes largely from the fact that Mem¬
bers of the Senate are so extremely busy
it is not always possible to get all those
who are interested in a particular prob¬
lem together at the same time, and there¬
fore it becomes necessary to go over in
detail any changes of language with all
those who may be concerned. I want to
assure the Senator that the whole mat¬
ter will be completely and fully explained
upon the floor before there is any con¬
clusion reached.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have
received a number of telegrams from my
State urging me to support the
O’Mahoney amendment in the form it
appeared several days ago. The senders
of the telegrams want me to support the
amendment in that form. Now, do I
understand that the changes which will
take place in the amendment will make it
necessary for me to contact the people
in Montana who have telegraphed to me
about this matter?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; I am sure^hat
no changes will be made which will make
it necessary for the Senator from Mon¬
tana to make contact with those persons,
because they are interested, as I am in¬
terested, and as the Senator from Mon¬
tana is interested, in maintaining the
rights of individuals to use the water that
arises within these States. That is the
objective of the amendment, it has been
its objective from the vei’y beginning, it
will continue to be its objective, and I am
happy to say to the Senator from Mon¬
tana that I am most encouraged by the
most amicable and understanding atti¬
tude of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. MURRAY. If I may be permitted
to say so, what struck me as rather
strange was the fact that the telegrams
which I have received from Montana had
reference only to the O’Mahoney amend¬
ment. The senders gave no considera¬
tion whatever to the other features of
the pending bill, among them the Bailey
amendment, which struck me as being
of very serious consequences to the 'West¬
ern States, because if that amendment
were adopted -
Mr. O’MAHONEY. But it was not
adopted. It was defeated, and the Sen¬
ator from Montana and I were quite in
agreement respecting it.
Mr. MURRAY. The point I am mak¬
ing is that the telegrams which I have
received seem to devote attention to only
one phase of the problem. It struck me
that the most serious thing about this
whole legislation is that it is designed —
or it will be contended, at least, after it is
passed, that it is designed — to obviate the
necessity for a Missouri Valley Author¬
ity. If it had been adopted in its orig¬
inal form it would have hamstrung the
entire West by turning over to the power
interests control of the power which
would be developed as a result of the
program envisaged by the pending
measure. It struck me as being very
strange that those who have telegraphed
me would overlook such a vitally im¬
portant phase of the legislation and con¬
centrate on one problem, namely that
of the rights of the upper States. If we
should have a' Missouri Valley Authority
there would be no question whatever
about the upper States being protected.
The President has so stated in his refer¬
ences to the Missouri Valley Authority
and to the T. V. A. It strikes me that
the entire bill should go over until we
have an opportunity carefully to analyze
it. The bill has been hastily thrown to¬
gether, and contains many projects
which have not been properly engi¬
neered. I intend to discuss this matter
later at some length, and point out the
danger of passing this bill in its present
form; but I wished to inquire at this
time exactly what the status of the
O’Mahoney amendments was. I under¬
stand that they have not as yet been
agreed upon, and that those interested
in the subject are working on them and
expect to have them ready in the near
future.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. That is correct.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Clerk
will state the next committee amend¬
ment passed over.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, after
line 24, it is proposed to strike out;
Sec. 6. Hereafter, whenever In the opinion
of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En¬
gineers any dam and reservoir project oper¬
ated under the direction of the Secretary of
War can be consistently used for reclamation
of arid lands, it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regu¬
lations under existing reclamation law for
the use of the storage available for such
purpose, and the operation of any such
project shall be in accordance with such
regulations. Such rates, as the Secretary
of the Interior may deem reasonable, shall
be charged for the use of said storage; the
moneys received to be deposited into the
Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous re¬
ceipts.
And insert:
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior that any dam
and reservoir project operated under the di¬
rection of the Secretary of War may be uti¬
lized for irrigation purposes, the Secretary of
the Interior is authorized to construct, oper¬
ate, and maintain, under the provisions of
the Federal reclamation laws (act of June 17,
1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory there¬
of or supplementary thereto), such additional
works in connection therewith as he may
deem necessary for irrigation purposes. Such
irrigation works may be undertaken only
after a report and findings thereon have been
made by the Secretary of the Interior as pro¬
vided in said Federal reclamation laws and
after subsequent specific authorization of the
Congress by an authorization act; and, within
the limits of the water users’ repayment abil¬
ity such report may be predicated on the al¬
location to Irrigation of an appropriate por¬
tion of the cost of structures and facilities
used for irrigation and other purposes. Dams
and reservoirs operated under the direction of
the Secretary of War may be utilized here¬
after for irrigation purposes only In con¬
formity with the provisions of this section,
but the foregoing requirement shall not prej¬
udice lawful uses now existing.
Mr. OVERTON. ' Mr. President, this
amendment will be the subject of the
O’Mahoney agreement, and I ask that it
be passed over.
The "VICE PRESIDENT. "Without ob¬
jection, the amendment will be passed
over.
The clerk will state the next commit¬
tee amendment passed over.
The Chief Clerk. On page 10, line 5,
after the word “site”, it is proposed to
Insert "Provided further. That none of
1944 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8543
the dams herein authorized for the Con¬
necticut River Basin shall be used for the
generation of hydroelectric power.”
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, that
amendment relates to the Connecticut
River Basin, and should be passed over.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob¬
jection, the amendment will be passed
over.
The clerk will state the next committee
amendment passed over. ,
The Chief Clerk. On page 21, after
line 2, it is proposed to insert:
In the interest of developing the natural
resources of the Missouri River Basin there
is hereby created a commission to be known
as the Missouri River Commission, which
shall be in the War Department and shall
function in accordance with existing law
under the direction of the Secretary of War
and the supervision of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in planning, constructing, operating,
and maintaining Improvements for naviga¬
tion and flood control in the Missouri River
Basin. The Missouri River Commission shall
consist of the same number of members with
the same qualiflcations and methods of ap¬
pointment, replacement, and removal as pre¬
scribed in the act approved June 28, 1879,
for the Mississippi River Commission and the
compensation for the members of the Mis¬
souri River Commission shall be the compen¬
sation presently provided for members of the
Mississippi River Commission. The Presi¬
dent of the Missouri River Commission shall
have the same qualiflcatlon and shall be
designated in the manner prescribed by exist¬
ing law for the President of the Mississippi
River Commission and he shall have the same
functions and perquisites. Including title,
pay, allowances, and rank while actually
serving as President of the Missouri River
Commission, as well as the same subsequent
retirement privileges under the same condi¬
tions as prescribed by law for the President
of the Mississippi River Commission.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I
should like to have the Senator in charge
of the bill explain the effect of this
amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, this
amendment was offered by the senior
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Clark], and
agreed to by the committee. I regret
that he is not present in the Chamber.
I had requested him to make an explana¬
tion of the amendment v(ihen it arose.
However, I believe I understand it. I
think it speaks for itself.
The origin of this amendment lies in
what is known as the Mississippi River
Commission. The contention made by
the Senator from Missouri during the
course of the hearings before the com¬
mittee was that not very much had been
accomplished toward controlling the
floods in the lower regions of the Mis¬
sissippi River until a commission had
been appointed, and that the Commis¬
sion had done a very meritorious work.
It was his thought that such a commis¬
sion organized for the Missouri River'
Basin would do equally fine work and
that it would be very helpful.
The Mississippi River Commission has
no authority; nor would the Missouri
River Commission contemplated by this
amendment have any authority. They
would be advisory boards or commissions.
The Mississippi River Commission meets
with the division engineer and considers
plans, makes suggestions, recommends
modiflcations, and even suggests radical
changes. Such recommendations are
considered by the drvision engineer, and
if approved by him, or not approved by
him, he makes his report to the Board of
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors then passes on the project.
Of course, as I have repeatedly stated,
no project originates anywhere except
in Congress. Congress must authorize a
preliminary investigation and survey in
order to initiate any project. Then it is
considered by the district engineer, and
goes to the division engineer. When it
gets to the division engineer and the Mis¬
sissippi River Commission, the Missis¬
sippi River Commission is supposed to
advise the division engineer as to whether
the proposed project is good or bad, or
requires any changes or alterations. So
its function is purely advisory.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. In view of the fact
that there has been introduced and is
pending before the Committee on Agri¬
culture and Forestry, for study by that
committee and by the Committee on Ir¬
rigation, a proposal to establish a Mis¬
souri Valley Authority, a proposal which
will undoubtedly attract the attention of
practically all Members of this body, does
not the Senator feel that it would be
advisable to pass over this amendment
altogether and not adopt it, because of
the apparent conflict between the pro¬
posal to set up a Missouri Valley Com¬
mission and the proposal to establish a
Missouri Valley Authority?
Mr. OVERTON. If I may interrupt
the Senator, I believe that the apparent
conflict is more superficial than real, be¬
cause a Missouri Valley Authority would
have authority. A Missouri River Com¬
mission would have no authority. It
would be merely an advisory board. I
do not 'believe that it would make any
great difference whether such -an agency
were organized or not, except from this
standpoint: Such bodies, as a nile, are
composed of very able engineers, as well
as civilians who are deeply interested.
On the Mississippi River Commission
there are three engineers and three
civilians, and they are very helpful in
the advice they give; but that is entirely
different from an Authority. There is
no relation whatsoever.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. H the Senator will
bear with me, my point is that there is
no essential conflict between this bill,
as I envisage it — and as I think the
Senator from Louisiana envisages it —
and a Missouri Valley Authority. The
mere fact that we authorize the Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Recla¬
mation to undertake post-war works of
a character similar to those which have
been constructed in the past by those
agencies does not in any way whatsoever
limit or change the power and jurisdic¬
tion of this Congress or of any future
Congress to establish any type of new
agency which it may deem desirable or
in the public interest.
Mr. CTERTON. The Senator is ab¬
solutely correct in that respect. There
Is no difference between him and me in
that regard.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. But when we. have
an amendment which provides for set¬
ting up a special kind of commission,
even though it be only advisory, as the
Senator has said, but is a new commis¬
sion, and do that at a time when a sub¬
stantial number of our colleagues are
urging the creation of a valley author¬
ity, do we not thereby invite a contro¬
versy which we can very well eliminate?
My feeling, Mr. President, is that we shall
proceed much more rapidly in the con¬
sideration of this bill by eliminating the
amendment altogether, rather than by
attempting to adopt it.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, far be
it from me to take a position in opposi¬
tion to what the committee has recom¬
mended be incorporated in the bill. I
cannot very well do that.
I regret that the Senator from Mis¬
souri is not now in the Chamber. As
soon as this matter came up, I asked one
of the pages to notify him that the
amendment was under consideration on
the floor. I should like to have the Sen¬
ator from Missouri present in the Cham¬
ber when it is considered. But I do not
know where he is, and no one else seems
to know.
Mr. President, I have made a full
statement about the matter; I have
stated the full reasons for it, and have
stated what its effect would be.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield for a question.
Mr. LANGER. In line 15, on page 21,
provision is made for compensation for
the members of the Missouri River Com¬
mission. Let me ask what the compen¬
sation is to be, as proposed at the present
time?
Mr. OVERTON. Seven thousand five
hundred dollars per annum.
Mr. LANGER. How many members
are there to be on the Commission?
Mr. OVERTON. Six.
Mr. "WHERRY. Mr. President, I should
like to endorse what has been said by the
distinguished senior Senator from "Wyo¬
ming [Mr. O’Mahoney]. I should like to
eliminate the entire amendment from
the bill, if that Viere possible, but at least
I should like to have it passed over until
there is a final determination of the
Missouri Valley Authority amendment, if
it is to be offered.
My reason for making that statement
is that if the board is to be an advisory
board — and I imderstand that the Mis¬
sissippi River Commission operates as an
advisory board — it would to some extent
help create the policy. In my State we
have not only those who believe in navi¬
gation and those who believe in power,
but we also have in the State a large
number of persons who believe in irriga¬
tion. If the Commission is appointed
with a membership which is more favor¬
able to navigation than to irrigation, or
more favorable to irrigation than to nav¬
igation, we shall have conflicting inter¬
ests in the State of Nebraska.
I feel that the bill, without provision in
it for the Commission, will not be hurt
any; and if there is to be a final author¬
ity at all, such as has already been sug¬
gested by the junior Senator from Mon¬
tana [Mr. Murray], it would seem to me
8544
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
that everything that is provided for in
the provision for the establishment of a
Missouri River Commission will be con¬
sidered by that particular Authority. I,
for one, hoping that all the interests of
Nebraska may be represented, and that
It will not be by the appointment of a
commission composed of three civilians
and three engineers, trust that the com¬
mittee amendment will not be adopted
or, at least, that it will be passed over
until the Missouri Valley Authority
amendment is brought up on the floor of
the Senate and until we have a deter¬
mination of it.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish
to say that I am in full accord with what
has been said by the able senior Senator
from Wyoming LMr. O’Mahoney] and
the able junior Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. V/herry] with reference to this
amendment. It seems to me that the
only excuse for the proposed provision is
the fact that heretofore the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Board of Army
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors have
not been able to agree on a proper pro¬
gram for the regulation of the river as an
entire matter. In view of the fact that
an effort is now being made to get those
two agencies to agree upon a unified
method of handling problems on the
river, it seems to me there will be no need
for the Commission which is proposed to
be set up. It would be only advisory, as
stated by the distinguished senior Sena¬
tor from Louisiana [Mr. Overton], and
could have no effect.
But it is stated that the purpose and
object of setting up the Commission are
to offset the need for a Missouri Valley
Authority. It may be that after the
Commission is set up, attempts will be
made to amend it and to expand its
power and authority, and, instead of hav¬
ing it merely advisory, to give it adminis¬
trative and executive powers in connec¬
tion with the handling of the problems
on the river.
It seems to me there is no need at all
for the Missouri River Commission
Amendment. It was introduced into the
bill by the Senator from Missouri, who
devotes his whole thought to the subject
of flood control. He stated on the floor
of the Senate on Friday that he was
opposed to the Missouri Valley Authority
and that he was in favor of the Missomu
River Commission idea wholly from the
standpoint of providing protection from
floods for the lower States. I can see no
benefit whatever from it. I join with the
two Senators who have just preceded me
in discussing this matter, in asking that
this provision be entirely ehminated
from the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Hatch in the chair) . The question is on
agreeing to the committee amendment
beginning on line 3, page 21.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I be¬
lieve it might be well to have before us
the provisions of the act which are re¬
ferred to in the amendment. They are
rather brief, and I believe it will be help¬
ful to have them appear in the Record.
The statute which was originally
passed, and which has since been
amended in ways which I do not think
are material for purposes of the present
discussion, is as follows;
Chapter 43
An act to provide tor the appointment of a
Mississippi River Commission for the Im'-
provement of said river from the Head of
the Passes near its mouth to its headwaters
Be it enacted, etc.. That a Commission is
hereby created, to be called the Mississippi
River Commission, to consist of seven mem¬
bers.
Sec. 2. The President of the United States
shall, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, appoint seven commissioners,
three of whom shall be selected from' the En¬
gineer Corps of the Army, one from the Coast
and Geodetic Survey, and three from civil
life, two of whom shall be civil engineers.
And any vacancy which may occur in the
Commission shall in like manner be filled
by the President of the United States; and
he shall designate one of the commissioners
appointed from the Engineer Corps of the
Army to be President of the Comm'ission.
The commissioners appointed from the Engi¬
neer Corps of the Army and the Coast and
Geodetic Survey shall receive no other pay
or compensation than is now allowed them
by law, and the other three commissioners
shall receive as pay and compensation for
their services each the sum of $3,000 per
annum; and the commissioners appointed
under this act shall remain in office subject
to removal by the President of the United
States.
Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of said Com¬
mission to direct and complete such surveys
of said river, between the Head of the Passes
near its mouth to its headwaters as may
now be in progress, and to make such addi¬
tional surveys, examinations, and investiga¬
tions, topographical, hydrographical, and hy-
drometrical, of said river and its tributaries,
as may be deem'ed necessary by said Com¬
mission to carry out the objects of this act.
And to enable said Commission to complete
such surveys, examinations, and investiga¬
tions, the Secretary of War shall, when re¬
quested by said Commission, detail from the
Engineer Corps of the Army such officers and
men as may be necessary, and shall place in
the charge and for the use of said Commis¬
sion such vessel or vessels and such m'achln-
ery and instruments as may be under his
control and may be deemed necessary. And
the Secretary of the Treasury shall, when re¬
quested by said Commission, in like manner
detail from the Coast and Geodetic Survey
such officers and men as may be necessary,
and shall place in the charge and for the use
of said Commission such vessel or vessels and
such machinery and Instruments as may be
under his control and may be deemed neces¬
sary, And the said Commission may, with
the approval of the Secretary cf War, employ
such additional force and assistants, and
provide, by purchase or otherwise, such ves¬
sels or boats and such instruments and
means as may be deemed necessary.
Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of said com¬
mission to take into consideration and
mature such plan or plans and estimates as
will correct, permanently locate, and deepen
the channel and protect the banks of the
Mississippi River; improve and give safety
and ease to the navigation thereof; prevent
destructive floods; promote and facilitate
commerce, trade, and the Postal Service; and
when so prepared and matured, to submit
to the Secretary of War a full and detailed
report of their proceedings and actions, and
of such plans, with estimates of the cost
thereof, for the purposes aforesaid, to be by
him transmitted to Congress; Provided, That
the commission shall report in full upon
the practicability, feasibility, and probable
cost of the various plans known as the jetty
system, the levee system, and thei outlet
system, as well as upon such others as they
deem necessary.
Sec. 6. The said commission may, prior to
the completion of all the surveys and exam-
November 27
Inations contemplated by this act, prepare,
and submit to the Secretary of War plans,
specifleations, and estimates of costs for
such immediate work as, in the judgment
of said commission, may constitute a part
of the general system of works herein con¬
templated, to be by him transmitted to
Congress.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of War may detail
from the Engineer Corps of the Army of the
United States an officer to act as secretary
of said commission.
Sec. 7. The Secretary of War is hereby
authorized to expend the sum of $175,000,
or so much thereof as may be necessary, for
the payment of the salaries herein provided
for, and of the necessary expenses Incurred
in the completion of such surveys as may
now be in progress, and of such additional
surveys, examinations, and investigations as
may be deemed necessary, reporting the
plans and estimates, and the plans, specifl-
catlons, and estimates contemplated by this
act, as herein provided for; and said sum Is
hereby appropriated for said purposes out
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
'appropriated.
Approved June 28, 1879.
With the exact terms of the statute
before us I believe it will be clear that
in the main the functions of the Commis¬
sion have already been performed
through the reconciliation of the plan of
the Bureau of Reclamation and of the
engineers on the Missouri River. I
therefore see no point in the proposed
amendment, and if we are to have some¬
thing of that kind it should be
broadened to give representation to the
Bureau of Reclamation and to the States
which are involved. I do not believe the
statute would serve any useful purpose
whatsoever in connection with this par¬
ticular bill.
Mr. DANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield.
Mr. DANGER. Referring again to the
Missouri River Commission, I should
like to have the opinion of the Senator
from Colorado as to why a commission
composed of six members should receive
salaries of $7,500 a year each, when they
would have no work to perform, would
have no responsibilities, and would
merely serve in an advisory capacity?
Mr. MILLIKIN. I see no purpose In
the Commission, and therefore ho pur¬
pose in any salary which the members
of the Commission would be paid. I be¬
lieve that the services which they would
perform have already been performed by
others.
Mr. DANGER. We have already paid
for the services and have paid the engi¬
neering bill.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Exactly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the committee
amendment.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, some dis¬
cussion was had with reference to pas.s-
ing the amendment over. Has the
amendment been passed over? ^
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No re¬
quest has been made to pass over the
amendment.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, if I
did not do so, I ask unanimous consent
to have the entire statute printed in the
Record in connection with my remarks.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that all laws amenda¬
tory to the statute be included.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I am agreeable to the
request of the Senator from Louisiana.
•There being no objection, the laws
amaidatory to the statute were ordered
to be printed in the Record, as follows:
EXTRACT FROM 31 STATCFTES AT LARGE 792-793
An act amending the act providing for the
appointment of a Mississippi River Com¬
mission, and so forth, approved June 28,
1879
Be it enacted, etc.. That an act entitled
“An act to provide for the appointment of
a Mississippi River Commission, for the im¬
provement of said river from the head of
the passes near its mouth to its headwaters,”
approved June 28, 1879, be amended by add¬
ing thereto the following section:
“Sec. 8. That the headquarters and general
offices of said commission shall be located
at some city or town on the Mississippi
River, to be designated by the Secretary of
War, and the meetings of the Commission
except such as are held on Government boats
during the time of the semiannual inspec¬
tion trips of the Commission shall be held
at said headquarters and general offices, the
times of said meetings to be fixed by the
president of the Commission, who shall cause
due notice of such meetings to be given
members of the Commission and the pub¬
lic.”
Approved, Februaiy 18, 1901.
EXTRACT FROM RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF JULY
26, 1912 (37 STAT. 818)
The traveling expens^ of the civilian mem¬
bers of the Mississippi River Commission,
and of the assistant engineer of the Board
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, when
on duty, shall be computed and paid in the
same way as the traveling expenses of the
Army members of said Commission and of
said Board.
EXTRACT FROM MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD CONTROL
ACT OF MAT 15, 1928 (45 STAT. 537)
Sec. 8. The project herein authorized shall
be prosecuted by the Mississippi River Com¬
mission under the direction of the Secretary
of War and supervision of the Chief of Engi¬
neers and subject to the provisions of this
act. It shall perform such functions and
through such agencies as they shall desig¬
nate after consultation and discussion with
the president of the Commission. For aU
other purposes the existing laws governing
the constitution and activities of the Com¬
mission shall remain unchanged. The Com¬
mission shall make inspection trips of such
frequency and duration as will enable it
to acquire first-hand information as to con¬
ditions and problems germane to the matter
of flood control within the area of its juris¬
diction; and on such trips of inspection
ample opportunity for hearings and sug¬
gestions shall be afforded persons affected
by or Interested in such problems. The pres¬
ident of the Commission shall be the execu¬
tive officer thereof and shall have the
qualifications now prescribed by law for the
Assistant Chief of Engineers, shall have the
title brigadier general. Corps of Engineers,
and shall have the rank, pay, and allowances
of a brigadier general while actually as¬
signed to such duty ; Provided, That the pres¬
ent Incumbent of the office may be appointed
a brigadier general of the Army, retired,
and shall be eligible for the position of pres¬
ident of the Commission if recalled to active
service by the President under the provisions
of existing law.
The salary of the president of the Mis¬
sissippi River Commission shall hereafter be
$10,000 per annum, and the salary of the
other members of the Commission shall here¬
after be $7,500 per annum. The official salary
of any officer of the United States Army
or other branch of the Government ap¬
pointed or employed under this act shall
be deducted from the amount of salary or
compensation provided by, or which shall
be fixed under, the terms of this act.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, the amendment providing for the
creation of the Missouri River Commis¬
sion was originally submitted by me in
the form of a separate bill. The amend¬
ment was suggested to me by the War
Department with which I had been work¬
ing in connection with matters concern¬
ing flood control.
The subject of flood control is, of
course, most vitally important to the
people at the lower end of the Missouri
Valley. The suggestion appeared to be
so logical, so natural, and so imperative
that I was glad to introduce a bill con¬
taining a provision for the Missouri River
Commission. I may also state that the
suggestion was originally made to me by
one of the greatest engineers who ever
served in the Engineer Corps of the
United States Army, the members of
which are in my opinion the greatest
flood-control engineers in the United
States. I refer to General Pick, who is
now the builder of the famous Lido Road
from India to Burma. The suggestion
was to have a body modeled in all re¬
spects upon the Mississippi River Com¬
mission, which has been such a notable
and monumental success in the relief of
the lower Mississippi River Valley from
the threat of disastrous floods. Under
the leadership of General Ferguson the
Mississippi River Commission has been
so successful in the lower Mississippi
Valley that in all the disastrous floods
which have taken place in the last few
years on the Missouri, on the Ohio, and
on the upper Mississippi, the main stem
of the Mississippi from Vicksburg to the
mouth of the river has been free from the
threat of disasters such as have befallen
other portions of the valley.
Mr. President, it may be that there
should be some change brought about in
the composition of the proposed Missouri
River Commission, perhaps by leaving
out the member who would represent
the Coast and Geodetic Survey and in¬
cluding a representative from the Recla¬
mation Service. But as to the principle
involved, it seems to me there can be no
question that the measure would be cal¬
culated to alleviate to a very large ex¬
tent the tragedy which year after year
befalls the lower Missouri Valley, and the
Mississippi Valley below the mouth of
the Missouri.
Mr. President, during the year before
last in the lower Missouri, from the
mouth of the Osage to the mouth of the
Missouri, we had not only one but three
disastrous floods. I have seen land with
which I had been faruiliar since I was
a boy, and which had never in 60 years
of cultivation produced less than 110
bushels of corn to the acre, lying under
5 or 6 feet of white sand cast up by the
Missouri River. The cultivation of the
land will probably be retarded for a gen¬
eration, and the restoration of the land
8545
to its normal full fertility will probably
never be possible. In the same year in
St. Charles County, Mo., I saw land which
was worth $275 or $300 an acre, and as
fertile as any land to be found in the
Valley of the Nile, absolutely destroyed.
This was 6 weeks after the flood. A river
25 feet deep and 30 feet wide was run¬
ning a current right through the middle
of the farms which I have in mind.
There was not a place as wide as 8 feet
without a destructive gully running
through it.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield.
Mr. MURRAY. Is it not true that the
conditions which the Senator from Mis¬
souri is now discussing are due to the
fact that there has been no unified meth¬
od of handling problems on the river?
Is it not also true that the Senator now
contemplates, as a result of this pro¬
gram, the construction of huge works on
the upper stretches of the tributaries of
the river, where large reservoirs and
dams will be erected which will do more
to help the lower States in the control of
floods than any levees or works such as
the Mississippi River Commission has
been constructing for the last 20 years?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, it would depend entirely on cu’-
cumstances. The bill which I introduced
would contemplate the construction of
reservoirs on the upper reaches of the
river. The contemplated plan would
include some large reservoirs in my own
State. In my judgment, it would also
be necessary to have levees constructed
on the lower reaches of the river. More
important than anything else, it seems
to me, would be to make every effort —
and it was included as a separate title
in my bill — ^to keep a great deal of the
water on the land where it falls. In
other words, it seems to me that we need
all three of those benefits or methods.
First, we need to retain as much as pos¬
sible of the water on the land where it
falls, and prevent it from draining into
the tributaries. It is necessary, in my
opinion, to have large reservoirs, or catch
basins — whatever we may please to call
them — on the upper and on the lower
reaches not only of the Mississippi but
the Missouri as well, and it is necessary
to have levees.
I do not think the levee system has
proved entirely successful as a separate
proposition, although it undoubtedly
saved the inundation of millions of acres
of very rich land from time to time.
Something more than a levee system is
necessary. The Mississippi River Com¬
mission have done a superb work in their
testing basin at Vicksburg. They worked
out the matter of currents and floods in
the Mississippi River, the elimination of
a great many of the tortuous curves that
used to be in the river, and the finding
of other outlets. There have been tre¬
mendous floods in the last few years on
the upper Mississippi and the Missouri,
sometimes as many as three of them a
year, I might say to the Senator from
Montana that not all that water came
from Montana, Wyoming, or any other
places in the upper reaches of the Mis¬
souri River; a part came as the result of
No, 163-
■2
8548 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 27
heavy rainfalls In Kansas and Missouri.
But in all those tremendous floods the
most disastrous in all history, the lower
Mississippi, the section from Vicksburg
to the mouth, which was formerly and
from time immemorial the danger spot,
the most vital and the most vulnerable of
any place in the whole Mississippi Valley,
has been free from those disasters. I
think that the work of the Mississippi
River Commission has been a tremen¬
dous factor in effectuating that result.
It has been brought about under their
leadership.
It does not seem to me that whether
there shall be a Missouri River Commis¬
sion, based on the same principles as the
Mississippi River Commission, has any¬
thing whatever to do with the question
whether ultimately Congress might de¬
cide to set up a Missouri Valley Author¬
ity, to which, so far as I am concerned,
I will say frankly, according to my pres¬
ent lights, I am opposed. I think the
Missouri Valley is too vast a section of
the United States for the principle of the
Tennessee Valley Authority to be appli¬
cable, certainly according to the lights
we have at the present time.
So the establishment of the Missouri
River Commission designed to handle
the desperate emergency we have been
facing year after year and sometimes
three times in one year, does not seem
to me to have anything whatever to do
with the question of whether Congress
ultimately desires to set up some other
and more comprehensive scheme.
What I am pleading for is relief for
the people who are being flooded away
from their land. We are suffering loss
of life> we are suffering tremendous loss
of property. At a time when the effort
is being made to have the United States
feed the world we are losing incalculable
sums by these constantly recurring
floods.
I have another amendment which I in¬
tend to offer, as I suggested the other
day. I think it is also very important
as affecting the question of controlling
and handling floods. Someone has to
be put in charge of that work, and I pro¬
pose the Corps of Engineers simply be¬
cause I think they are better qualified
than anyone else. I propose that the
same authority shall control and regulate
the dams of this country, both privately
and publicly owned, for the purpose of
preventing the occurrence of floods on
the lower reaches of these rivers.
We had an example — I do not know
whether the Senator happened to be in
the Chamber the other day when I made
reference to it — in the case of the Osage
River in Missouri. The Bagnell Dam,
owned and operated by a public utility
which was privately owned, created a
lake in the Ozarks. Tire lake was allowed
to get full of water. Then heavy rains
ensued, and they finally opened the flood
gates and permitted a 12-foot head of
water to go down the Osage River and
into the Missouri and thence into the
Mississippi, wreaking terrific damage as
far down the Mississippi River as Cairo.
At about the same time precisely the same
thing happened in the case of the Pensa¬
cola Dam in Oklahoma, which was a pub¬
licly owned dam and under public opera¬
tion. I say there ought to be some au¬
thority that can compel the operation of
all such dams in such a way as not to
create a serious menace to the people who
live along any stream.
Coming back to the question of the
Missouri River Commission, I want to
repeat that there seems to me to be ab¬
solutely no reason to assume that by
reason of the creation of the Missouri
River Commission, based on precisely the
same principles as the Mississippi . River
Commission, which has been so success¬
ful, any attempt is being made to make
any commitments as to future policy of
Congress against a more comprehensive
scheme such as the Missouri Valley Au¬
thority. AIL we are seeking to do is to
afford relief to the people of the Missouri
Valley from the tragic and desperate sit¬
uation which now confronts them. It is,
it seems to me, an emergency matter.
Mr. MURRAY, Mr. President, I ap¬
preciate the very^ble argument the Sen¬
ator from Missouri Ims just made, and
I can understand his apprehensions with
reference to flood problems in his sec¬
tion of the Missouri River. But it seems
to me, unless it is absolutely necesisary
that we should have this commission set
up, that we should not undertake to set
it up at this time. It would be a new
commission: it would add a new organi¬
zation to the Government set-up.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, the Senator and I both have voted
for so many new commissions and boards
and bureaus and organizations since we
have been Members of the Senate that
in a matter which I consider to be a
desperate emergency I do not think we
should hesitate about the proposal. I
have usually been reluctant to vote for
the creation of new commissions, but in
view of the fact that there is an estab¬
lished model for the commission now
proposed, it seems to me that in that situ¬
ation the people affected are entitled to
some relief.
We have a situation, I will say to the
Senator, which would make it very diffi¬
cult for a Missouri Valley Authority to
operate effectively. At one place the
Missouri River cuts through the Missis¬
sippi a distance of some 15 miles above
the mouth of the Missouri. If we do
have a Missouri Valley Commission, who
would have jurisdiction over the water
that is coming down from Missouri and
going across into the Mississippi above
the mouth of the Missouri?
Mr. MURRAY. Is it not true that the
need for such a commission as the Sen¬
ator is talking about will largely be obvi¬
ated as a result of the understanding
that is sought to be brought about be¬
tween the various interests on the river
and the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Army engineers?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. So far as
that is concerned, I am very happy that
that agreement is being worked out. I
think that is something which ought to
have been done a long time ago. It is
only common sense to have that done.
But I repeat what I said a moment ago
that we who are living on the lower
reaches of the Missouri River are under
the gun. We are being flooded, we are
having our lives endangered and our
property destroyed, and, no matter what
agreement may be made by the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Corps of Army
Engineers as to these great reservoirs,
which I am sure will be helpful in pre¬
venting floods, we need a commission
that could accomplish in some degree
what the Mississippi River Commission
has worked out for the lower Mississippi.
Let me say that that was not done par¬
ticularly by building reservoirs: it was
done by a study of the problems, the
creation of new outlets, eliminating tor¬
tuous turns in the Mississippi River, and,
heaven knows, there is no stream on the
face of the earth that has more tortuous
turns to be brought under control than
the lower reaches of the Missouri River.
It does seem to me that, whatever may
be the ultimate policy of the Govern¬
ment as to a Missouri Valley Authority,
the people in the lower end of the Mis¬
souri Valley are entitled to such relief as
■I believe would be afforded by the crea¬
tion of the Missouri River Commission
and they are entitled to it now. I do not
wish to belabor the subject.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, it seems
to me that in the absence of an effort to
bring about a greater degree of unity and
cooperation between the various Federal
agencies which are working on this river
problern, ther<e can be no need now for
this purely advisory commission. All
they could do would be to advise. Would
it not be true that, as a result of the en¬
gineers representing the various agencies
working on the river, those engineers
would be able to study the problem?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It may be
true that this would be an advisory com¬
mission, but such advice has been of in¬
calculable value in the case of the Mis¬
sissippi River. Certainly no one could be
more zealously in favor of the principle
of coordination of various Government
agencies than I am and have always
been: but, as I have said, it is like the
man who house was burning and he was
told, “Well, we will go down and have a
consultation as to the best methods of
fire protection and the best insulation,
and we will let you know after your house
has burned down.” We are "under the
gun,” we are being flooded, we are losing
property, we are losing lives, and there¬
fore it seems to me that whatever may
be the ultimate policy of the Govern¬
ment, and whatever degree of coordina¬
tion may ultimately be worked out, the
creation of the Missouri River Commis¬
sion would be a very beneficial step.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tun-
NELL in the chair) . The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the com¬
mittee on page 21, beginning in line 3.
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the next amendment
passed over.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 45,
after line 23, it is proposed to add a new
section, as follows:
Sec. 15. (a) The Chief of Engineers of the
United States Army is authorized and di¬
rected to make examinations of any privately
owned or operated dam constructed across
navigable waters of the United States, or
across tributaries thereof.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8547
(b) Whenever It shall appear, after rea¬
sonable notice and opportunity for hearing
to the person or corporation owning or con¬
trolling any such dam, that such dam is
being operated or maintained in such a
manner as to jeopardize the safety of persons
or property either above or below such dam,
the Chief of Engineers shall enter orders
requiring such changes in the operation or
maintenance of such dam as he deems appro¬
priate and necessary, and prescribing a rea¬
sonable time within which such changes
shall be made. If, at the end of such rea¬
sonable time, the changes in operatioh or
maintenance ordered by the Chief of Engi¬
neers have not been made, the Chief of
Engineers shall notify the United States dis¬
trict attorney for the district in which such
dam or any part thereof is situated, who
shall forthwith cause criminal proceedings
to be instituted against the person, or cor¬
poration, owning or controlling such dam.
(c) Any person or corporation willfully
failing or refusing to comply with an order
of the Chief of Engineers issued pursuant to
this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis¬
demeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall
be punished by a fine not -exceeding $5,000.
Every month during which such willful
failure or refusal continues shall be deemed
to be a separate offense and shall subject
such person or corporation to the penalties
herein prescribed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
Mr. MILLIETN. Mr. President, may
we have an explanation of the amend¬
ment?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I was just undertaking to explain
the amendment in my colloquy a few
minutes ago with the Senator from Mon¬
tana. Th- idea of the amendment came
from two incidents which I observed
during the floods of 2 years ago. One
was in connection with the Grand River
Dam, in Oklahoma, the other was in
connection with the Osage River Dam,
in Missouri, one publicly operated, the
other privately operated, but both of
them so misoperated that they caused
very disastrous floods, indeed, some ef the
most disastrous floods in history.
The purpose of the amendment is
merely to provide some police power
which in a proper case can advise the
operators of dams, whether public or
private, when they are endangering life
and property owners either above or be¬
low the danger point, and it does not
make any difference which, from that
standpoint. The purpose is to bring
about a situation that it will not be pos¬
sible for private operators of a dam such
as that on the Osage River to open up
then flood gates and let a 12-foot head
of water go down the Osage River, thence
into the Missouri, thence into the Missis¬
sippi, causing untold millions of dollars
of damage, and destroying some natural
resources which can probably never be
replaced.
The theory of the amendment is mere¬
ly to have some authority, it does not
make a great deal of difference which
authority is set up, so far as that is
concerned, that can act for the protec¬
tion of the property owners above or be¬
low where dams are located. I suggest
the Corps of Engineers, because I re¬
gard them as the ablest authorities in
the country in connection with flood
control.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I
should like to invite attention to two
preliminary facts : First, that we already
have such legislation as to the navigable
streams of the country; second, that this
legislation is broad enough to cover the
nonnavigable streams of the Nation.
When we come to consideration of the
second fact, the proposed amendment
crosses, in a very adverse way, the entire
conception of the ai’id and semiarid
States as to the control of the waters on
nonnavigable streams. For example,
Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Wyoming,
and South Dakota have definite provi¬
sions in their constitutions, accepted by
the Congress of the United States by
their admission into the Union. I shall
read the pertinent paragraph of the Col¬
orado Constitution, for, roughly, it is the
same in the others I have mentioned.
I quote from article XVI of the Colo¬
rado Constitution:
The water of every natural stream, not
heretofore appropriated, within the State of
Colorado, is hereby declared to be the prop¬
erty of the public, and the same is dedicated
to the use of the people of the State, subject
to appropriation as hereinafter provided.
I venture to say there is not one of the
arid or semiarid States which does not
have control statutes enabling the appro¬
priate State ofBcials to regulate and con¬
trol the improper use of dams, or the
improper construction of dams on non¬
navigable streams.
For example, I should like to read into
the Record some of the provisions which
prevail in Colorado, and which we in
Colorado believe afford the best protec¬
tion that can be gotten, under the cir¬
cumstances, for our citizens. I believe
also that, somewhat similar statutes pre¬
vail in the rest of the 17 arid and semi¬
arid States.
I read from the 1935 Colorado Stat¬
utes Annotated, volume 3, chapter 90,
section 83 to section 92, inclusive:
Control of Reservoirs and Dams in Colorado
FROM 1935 COLORADO STATUTES ANNOTATED, VOL¬
UME 3, CHAPTER 90, SECTIONS 83-92, INCLU¬
SIVE
Sec. 83. Reservoir and dam over certain
size not to be built without filing plans with
State engineer and obtaining his approval:
No reservoir of a capacity of more than 1,000
acre-feet or having a dam or embankment
in excess of 10 feet in vertical height, or
having a surface area at high-water line in
excess of 20 acres shall hereafter be con¬
structed in this State except that the plans
and specifications for the same shall have
first been approved by the State engineer
and filed in his office; and the State engineer
shall act as consulting engineer during the
construction thereof, and shall have author¬
ity to require the material used and the work
of construction to be done to his satisfac¬
tion; and no work shall be deemed complete
under the provisions of this law until the
State engineer shall furnish to the owners
of such structures a written statement of the
work of construction and the full completion
thereof, together with his acceptance of the
same, which statement shall specify the di¬
mensions of such dam and capacity of such
reservoir or reservoirs (L. 1899, p. 314, sec. 1;
R. S. 1908, sec. 3205; C. L., sec. 1685; L. 1925,
p. 330, sec. 1).
Sec. 84. Cost of inspection and supervision
paid by owner: The owner or owners of such
reservoirs shall pay to said State engineer
bis actual expenses Incurred In making per¬
sonal inspection, and shall pay to any deputy
appointed by him to attend to such super¬
vision not to exceed $10 per day and actual
expenses for each and every day necessarily
employed for such purposes (L. 18£9, p. 314,
sec. 2; R. S. 1908, sec. 3206; C. L., sec. 1686;
L. 1925, p. 331, sec. 1).
Sec. 85. Engineer to determine amount of
water to be stored: The State engineer shall
annually determine the amount of water
which it is safe to Impound in the several
reservoirs within this State and it shall be
unlawful for the owners of any reservoir to
store in said reservoir water in excess of the
amount so determined by the State engineer
to be safe (L. 1899, p. 315, sec. 3; R. S. 1908,
sec. 3207; C. L., sec. 1687).
Sec. 86. Water commissioner to withdraw
excess water — Close inlets: In the event of
the owners of any such reservoir impounding
water therein to a depth greater than that
determined by the State engineer to be safe,
it shall be the duty of the water commission¬
er of the district where such reservoir shall
be located to forthwith proceed to withdraw
from said reservoir so much of the water so
impounded therein as shall be in excess of
the amount so determined by the State en¬
gineer to be safe, and shall close tire inlets to
the same so as to prevent said reservoir from
being refilled to an amount beyond what
said State engineer shall have designated as
being safe. In the event of the owners of said
reservoir, or any other person or persons, in¬
terfering with the water commissioner in the
discharge of said duty, the said water com¬
missioner shall call to his aid such persons
as he deems necessary, and employ such force
as the circumstances demand to enable him
to comply with the requirements of this sec¬
tion (L. 1899, p. 315, sec. 4; R. S. 1908, sec.
3208; C. L., sec. 1688).
Sec. 87. Complaint that reservoir is un¬
safe — Duty of englneei-: Upon complaint
being made to the State engineer by three or
more persons residing or having property in
such a location that their homes or property
would be in danger of destruction or damage
in the event of a flood occurring on account
of the breaking of the embankment of any
reservoir within the State, that said reservoir
is in an unsafe condition, or that it is being
filled with water to such an extent as to ren¬
der it unsafe, it shall be the duty of the State
engineer to forthwith examine said reservoir
and determine the amount of water it is safe
to impound therein. If upon such examina¬
tion, the State engineer shall find that said
reservoir is unsafe, or is being filled with
water to such an extent as to render it unsafe,
it shall be his duty to Immediately cause said
water to be drawn off from said reservoir, to
such an extent as will, in his judgment, ren¬
der the same safe. If water Is then flowing
into said reservoir, he shall cause tlie same
to be discontinued (L. 1899, p. 315, sec. 5;
R. S. 1908, sec. 3209; C. L.. sec. 1689) .
Sec. 88. Engineer may use force — Violation
of engineer’s order: The State engineer is
hereby authorized and empowered to use
such force as is necessary to perform the
duties required of him in the preceding sec¬
tion, and to have and exercise all of the
powers conferred upon the water commis¬
sioner by section 86 of this chapter. If, after
any of such reservoirs shall have been exam¬
ined by said State engineer, the owners
thereof, or any other person or persons, shall
fill or attempt to fill them, or either of them,
to a point in excess of the amount the State
engineer shall have determined to be safe,
then it shall be the duty of the water com¬
missioner of the district wherein such reser¬
voir is located to proceed as is directed by
section 86 of this chapter (L. 1899, p. 316,
sec. 6; R. S. 1908, sec. 3210; C. L., sec. 1690).
Sec. 89. Expense of examination — By whom
paid; The persons calling upon the State
engineer to perform the duty required of
him by section 87 of this chapter shall pay
him mUeage in advance at the rate of 10
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 27
8548
cents per mile for each mile actually and
necessarily traveled in going to and from
said reservoir, and should the State engineer
find upon examination that such reservoir
is in an unsafe condition, the owners thereof
shall be liable for all expenses incurred In
such examination (L. 1899, p. 316, sec. 7;
E. S. 1908, sec. 3211; C. L., sec. 1691).
Sec. 90. Appeal from decision of engineer:
In the event of either party being dissatisfied
with the decision of the State engineer, they
may taken an appi|B.l to the county or district
court of the county wherein said reservoir
is located, and said court shall hear and
determine the matter summarily at the earli¬
est practical time without written pleadings
or the aid of a jury; subject to the right of
either party to take an appeal or writ of error
as in other civil cases; provided, that the
judgment of the State engineer shall con¬
trol until final determination of the cause
(L. 1899, p. 316, sec. 8; R. S. 1908, sec. 3212;
C. L., sec. 1692).
Sec. 91. Owners liable for damages in case
of breakage of reservoir: None of the pro¬
visions of sections 83 to 92 of this chapter
shall be construed as relieving the owners of
any such reservoir from the payment of such
damages as may be caused by the breaking
of the embankments thereof, but in the
event of any such reservoir overflowing; or
the embankments, dams, or outlets breaking
or washing out, the owners thereof shall be
liable for all damage occasioned thereby
(L. 1899, p. 316, sec. 9; R. S. 1908, sec. 3213;
C. L., sec. 1693) .
Sec. 92. Violation of sections — Penalty —
Disposition of fines: Any reservoir company
failing or refusing, after 10 days’ notice in
writing having been given, to obey the di¬
rections of the State engineer as to the con¬
struction or filling of any reservoir as herein
provided, shall be subject to a fine of not less
than $50, for each offense, and each day’s
continuance after time of notice has expired
shall be considered a separate offense; such
fines to be recovered by civil action in the
name of the people, by the district attorney,
upon the complaint of the State engineer,
and in the county where the injury com¬
plained of occurred. The proceeds of all
fines, after payment of costs and charges of
proceedings, shall be paid into the county
treasury for the use of the general fund of
the county (L. 1899, p. 317. sec. 10; R. S.
1908, sec. 3214; C. L., sec. 1694).
As I said' before, Mr. President, I be¬
lieve that substantially similar legisla¬
tion prevails in the other arid and semi-
•arid States. Thus it will be seen that as
to the unnavigable streams of the Na¬
tion, where under our State constitutions
and under the laws of Congress and un¬
der the decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States we have control over
the waters for local use, we have taken
those precautions which are necessary to
protect the people from flood damage.
Mr. BUSHPIELD and Mr. WHITE ad¬
dressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator yield, and if so to whom?
Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield first to the
distinguished junior Senator from
South Dakota.
Mr. BUSHFIELD. I know the distin¬
guished Senator has given this matter
extensive study and thought, but I
should like to ask him about the pro¬
visions of section 15, the first paragraph
of which reads:
The Chief of Engineers of the United
States Army Is authorized and directed to
make examinations of any privately owned
orioperated dam constructed across navigable
waters of the United States, or across tribu¬
taries thereof.
Mr. President, it seems to me the only
construction that can be given to that
language is that it would give the Chief
of Engineers complete domination over
all the waters in any of the individual
States, because many of the tributaries
are not navigable.
Mr. MILLIKIN. In my judgment,
Mr. President, that is the entire pur¬
port of the proposed amendment, for, as
I said at the beginning of my remarks,
we already have a statute which gives
the Chief of Engineers full power over
navigable streams.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator now yield to me?
Mr. MILLIKIN. Yes.
Mr. WHITE. Is it not true that under
the language of subparagraph (a) as it
stands, the Federal authorities are
given the rigflt to enter upon private
lands, upon a privately constructed dam,
and make investigations even though
there is not the slightest showing of any
danger arising from the structure itself,
even though there is not even a shadow
of suspicion that there is any defect in
the structure or any danger to anyone?
This language is sufficiently broad,
nevertheless, to permit the Federal au¬
thorities to go upon a navigable stream
or on a nonnavigable stream within the
Senator’s State or any other State, and
make investigation.
Mr. MILLIKIN. That, Mr. President,
is entirely correct, and it is correct de¬
spite the fact, which I believe I have de¬
veloped by reading from a typical State
statute for the control of dams and reser¬
voirs, that we have taken the utmost
precaution to render our streams safe.
In that connection let me add that we
are prone to overemphasize the impor¬
tance of our reclamation projects in their
relation to the whole subject of controlled
waters in the arid and semiarid parts of
the country. , The reclamation projects
now in being only involve about 10 per¬
cent of all the reclamation that is being
done in the western country. I am
speaking in terms of acreage. In other
words, roughly 89 or 90 percent of all the
lands being brought under water by irri¬
gation is by private individuals and pri¬
vate associations which have their own
dams, and I venture to say that over the
country at large there are literally thou¬
sands of dams, small and large, privately
owned, on nonnavigable streams, having
no possibility of damage to anyone below
them, which automatically would come
under the provisions of this measure,
would require inspection of them, require
enormous additions to the investigative
staff of the Chief of Engineers, and would
pester and harass and subject to crim¬
inal prosecution any man who declines
to make the alteration requested or who
declines to follow the order promulgated.
One of the basic defects of the measure
is that even if a man were placed in jail
there would be no assurance, under the
terms of the measure, that the danger
objected to would be remedied. I think
the proposed amendment is full of many
defects, especially in the matter of notice
and hearing, and the absence of those
provisions which, even if the policy were
good, would not bring about the relief
desired, to wit, the correction of a condi¬
tion rather than putting a citizen in jail.
The Chief Engineer, I add, must act
automatically under the terms of this
provision. If the citizen refused to do
what the Chief of Engineers says he shall
do, he is automatically subjected to a
criminal proceeding, he can be fined and
sent to jail, and the merits of the mat¬
ter — this is an astonishing situation —
the merits of the matter cannot be tried
under the language of the proposed
amendment. If the individual fails to
obey what might be a completely arbi¬
trary order, he goes to jail if the terms
of this amendment are complied with.
Mr. 'WHERRY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MILLIKIN. I yield.
Mr. WHERRY. The Senator has an¬
swered what I had in mind to ask, as
to what would happen in the event of a
conviction without a hearing. There is
no provision in the section for a court
review dr for an appeal.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Nothing at all. The
individual is automatically convicted, if
the jury and the judge carry out the
mandate provided in the amendment, if
he fails to respond to the command of
the engineers, whether the command is
just or unjust. And the thing to be
remedied, to save people from the damage
of flood, is not touched by this section.
A man who feels indignant over an un¬
just charge might be willing to go to jail,
and the matter of the objection to his
dam or the control of his water, as urged
by the engineers, would not be touched.
Let me repeat that to my mind, and I
believe to the minds of the rest of us from
the arid and semiarid States, the theory
of the bill represents an unwarranted en¬
croachment on the control of water of
nonnavigable streams which has been
so often confirmed in the States by
Supreme Court decisions, by the statutes
of Congress, and by the constitutions of
the States which I have mentioned and
which were accepted by Congress.
I wish to read a few excerpts from the
case of California Oregon Power Co.
V. Beaver Portland Cement Co. et al. (295
U> S. 142) , decided by imanimous opinion
of the Supreme Court of the United
States in 1935.
The question there was whether
riparian rights on waters in the State of
Oregon should prevail over the doctrine
of prior appropriation and beneficial
user. The cement company was blasting
the stream to open up a way for an
irrigation diversion, and to get building
block for some kind of structure which
it intended to erect. The power company
brought an injunction proceeding on the
ground that this was an interference
with its riparian rights.
It will be recalled that under the com¬
mon law the riparian owner is entitled
to the undiminished, unpolluted flow of
the stream, whereas under the doctrine
which prevails in the arid and semiarid
West, with the exception of some mixed
systems in a few of the States, the man
who first appropriates the water and puts
it to a beneficial use is entitled to that
water, whether or not he be on the stream
and regardless of how far away from the
stream he may be. The Supreme Court
1S44 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
of the United States therefore felt called
upon to discuss and consider the nature
of our western water rights. I shall read
a few excerpts from the opinion. I read
first from pages 153 and 154 of the
opinion :
The question with which we are here pri¬
marily concerned is whether — in the light of
pertinent history, of the conditions which
existed in the arid and semiarid land. States,
of the practice and attitude of the Federal
Government, and of the congressional legis¬
lation prior to 1885 — the homestead patent
In question carried with it as part of the
granted estate the common-law rights which
attach to riparian proprietorship.
Later the Supreme Court said in its
opinion, on pages 155 and 158:
The effect of these acts —
The Supreme Court was referring to
an act of Congress of 1866 and an amend¬
atory act of 1870.
The effects of these acts are not limited to
rights acquired before 1866. They reach into
the future as well, and approve and confirm
the policy of appropriation for a beneficial
use, as recognized by local rules and customs,
and the legislation and Judicial decisions of
the arid-land States, as the test and measure
of private rights in and to the nonnavigable
waters on the public domain (citing State
cases).
If the acts of 1866 and 1870 did not con¬
stitute an entire abandonment of the com¬
mon-law rule of running waters Insofar as
the public lands and subsequent grantees
thereof were concerned, they foreshadowed
the more positive declarations of the Desert
Land Act of 1877, which it is contended did
bring about that result. Tliat act allows the
entry and reclamation of desert lands within
the States of California, Oregon, and Nevada
(to which Colorado was later added) , and the
then territories of Washington, Idaho, Mon¬
tana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico,
and Dakota, with a proviso to the effect that
the right to use of waters by the claimant
shall depend upon bona fide prior appro¬
priation, not to exceed the amount of waters
actually appropriated and necessarily used
for the purpose of irrigation and reclamation.
Then follows the clause of the proviso with
which we are here concerned:
“All surplus water over and above such
actual appropriation and use, together with
the water of all lakes, rivers, and other
sources of water supply upon the public lands
and not navigable, shall remain and be held
free for the appropriation and use of the
public for irrigation, mining,'and manufac¬
turing purposes subject to existing rights’’
(ch. 107, 19 Stat. 377).
For the light which it will refiect upon the
meaning and scope of that provision and
its bearing upon the present question, it is
well to pause at this point to consider the
then-existing situation with respect to land
and water rights in the States and Territories
named. These States and Territories com¬
prised the western third of the United
States— a vast empire in extent, but still
sparsely settled. Prom a line east of the
Rocky Mountains almost to the Pacific Ocean
and from the Canadian border to the bound¬
ary of Mexico — an area greater than that
of the Original Thirteen States — ^the lands
capable of redemption, in the main, con¬
stituted a desert, impossible of agricultural
use without artificial irrigation.
In the beginning, the task of reclaiming
this area was left to the unaided efforts of
the people who found their way by painful
effort to its inhospitable solitudes. These
w.'jstern pioneers, emulating the spirit of so
many others who had gone before them in
similar ventures, faced the difficult problem
of wresting a living and creating homes from
the raw elements about them, and threw
down the gap of battle to the forces of Na¬
ture. With imperfect tools, they built dams,
excavated canals, constructed ditches, plowed
and cultivated the soli, and transformed dry
and- desolate lands Into green fields and leafy
orchards. In the success of that effort, the
general Government itself was greatly con¬
cerned — not only because, as owner, it was
charged through Congress with the duty of
disposing of the lands, but because the set¬
tlement and development of- the country in
which the lands lay was highly desirable.
To these ends, prior to the summer of 187'7,
Congress had passed the mining laws, the
homestead and preemption laws, and finally,
the Desert Land Act. It had encouraged
and assisted, by making large land grants to
aid the building of the Pacific railroads and
in many other ways, the redemption of this
immense landed estate. That body thor¬
oughly understood that an enforcement of
the common-law rule, by greatly* retarding if
not forbidding the diversion of waters from
their accustomed channels, would disas¬
trously affect the policy of dividing the pub¬
lic domain into small holdings and effecting
their distribution among innumerable set¬
tlers.
In respect of the area embraced by the
desert-land States, with the exception of a
comparatively narrow strip along the Pa¬
cific seaboard, it had become evident to Con¬
gress, as it had to the inhabitants, that the
future growth and well-being of the entire
region depended upon a complete adherence
to the rule of appropriation for a beneficial
use as the delusive criterion of the right to
the use of water. The streams and other
sources of supply from which this water
must come were separated from one another
by wide stretches of parched and barren land
which never could be made to produce agri¬
cultural crops except by the transmission of
water for long distances and its entire con¬
sumption in the processes of irrigation.
Necessarily, that involved the complete sub¬
ordination of the common-law doctrine of
riparian rights to that of appropriation.
And this substitution of the rule of appro¬
priation for that of the common law was to
have momentous consequences. It became
the determining factor in the long struggle
to expunge from our vocabulary the legend
“Great American Desert,” which was spread
in large letters across the face of the old
maps of the far West.
In the light of the foregoing considerations,
the Desert Land Act was passed, and in their
light it must now be construed. By its
terms, . not only all surplus water over and
above such as might be appropriated and
used by the desert-land entrymen, but “the
water of all lakes, rivers, and other sources
of water supply upon the public lands and
not navigable” were to remain “free for the .
appropriation and use of the public for irri¬
gation, mining, and manufacturing pur¬
poses.” If this language is to be given its
natural meaning, and we see no reason why it
should not, it effected a severance of all
.waters upon the public domain, not thereto¬
fore appropriated, from the land itself.
I quote from pages 162 and 165 of the
opinion:
As the owner of the public domain, the
Government possessed the power to dispose
of land and water thereon together, or to
dispose of them separately.
I interject to say that the Constitu¬
tion, in article IV, gives the Congress the
definite right to dispose of public prop¬
erty.
The fair construction of the provision now
under review is that Congress Intended to
establish the rule that for the future the
land should be patented separately: and that
all nonnavigable waters thereon should be
reserved for the use of the public under the
laws of the States and Territories named.
8549
The words that the water of all sources of
water supply upon the public lands and not
navigable “shall remain and be held free for
the appropriation and use of the public” are
not, susceptible of any other construction.
The only exception made is that in favor of
existing rights; and the only rule spoken of
is that of appropriation. It is hard to see
how a more definite intention to sever the
land and water could be evinced. The terms
of the statute, thus construed, must be read
into every patent thereafter issued, with the
same force as though expressly Incorporated
therein, with the result that the grantee will
take the legal title to the land conveyed, and
such title, and only such title, to the flowing
waters thereon as shall be fixed or ac’rnowl-
edged by the customs, laws, and judicial de¬
cisions of the State of their location. If it be
conceded that in the absence of Federal leg¬
islation the State would be powerless to af¬
fect the riparian rights of the United States
or its grantees, still, the authority of Con¬
gress to vest such power in the State, and
that it has done ^so by the legislation to
which we have referred, cannot be doubted.
The proceedings in connection with the
adoption of the Desert Land Act bear out
this view. The bill which subsequently be¬
came the act was called up for consideration
in the Senate on February 27, 1877. Tlie re¬
port of the committee, among other things,
said that the larger portions of the lands
bordering on the streams had been appro¬
priated: that the provisions of the bill would
enable settlers by combined efforts to con¬
struct more extensive works and reclaim lands
now worthless; that a system had already
grown up in the States and Territories in¬
cluded in the bill which recognized priority
of appropriation as the rule governing the
right to the use of water, limiting the
amount to that actually used, and thus avoid¬
ing waste. Senator Sargent, of California,
who was in charge of the bill, in the course
of the debate said that one great difficulty
had been that “cattlemen go under a ficti¬
tious compliance with the terms of the pre¬
emption law and take their land along the
margin of the streams, and then there is no
possibility of getting water to the back coun¬
try at all. I want to provide so that per¬
sons in the back country may go above such
a person, for instance, on Humboldt River,
and take the water out and conduct it on the
back lands.” (Congressional Record, vol. V,
pt. 3, 44th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 1965-1986).
There is nothing in the language of the act
or in the circumstances leading up to or ac¬
companying its adoption that indicates an
intention on the part of Congress to confine
the appropriation of water in contravention
of the common-law doctrine to desert-land
entrymen.
Second. Nothing we have said is, meant to
suggest that the act, as we construe it,
has the effect of curtailing the power of the
States affected to legislate in respect of
waters and water rights as they deem wise in
the public interest. What we hold is that
following the act of 1877, if not before, all
nonnavigable waters then a part of the pub¬
lic domain became publici juris, subject to
the plenary control of the designated States
Including those since created out of the
territories named, with the right in each to
determine for itself to what extent the rule
of appropriation or the common-law rule in'
respect of riparian rights should obtain.
For since “Congress cannot enforce either
rule upon any State” (Kansas v. Colorado (203
U. S. 46, 94) ), the full power of choice must
remain with the State. The Desert Land Act
does not bind or purport to bind the States
to any policy. It simply recog;pizes and gives
sanction, insofar as the United States and its
future grantees are concerned, to the State
and local doctrine of appropriation, and seeks
to remove what otherwise might be an im¬
pediment to its full and successful opera¬
tion. (See Wyoming v. Colorado (259 U. S.
419,465).)
8550
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 27
Briefly, Mr. President, acting on the
assurances of our own State constitu¬
tions, accepted by the Congress of the
United States, and acting on the assur¬
ances of opinions of this kind, we have
constructed our own dams, and have set
up our own rules for the regulation of
water no nonnavigable streams, and the
proposed amendment runs directly con¬
trary thereto. Therefore I hope it will
not be adopted.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
wish to add a word to what the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Colorado has
said about the importance to the people
of the West of rejecting this amendment.
I understand perfectly the reasons which
have prompted the Senator from Mis¬
souri IMr. Clark] to suggest the amend¬
ment. Of course steps should be taken
to prevent the improper use of construc¬
tions upon any river system that w'ould
tend to create danger of floods and make
more diflicult the control of floods; but
what is not generally understood by
those who have been dealing with this
problem is that an utterly different con¬
dition exists in the far West from that
which exists in all other sections of the
country.
I have before me a map showing the
average annual precipitation in the
United States, compiled from weather
records. It will be observed that more
than one-half of the United States on
this map is colored in green. That green
area is an area in which the annual pre¬
cipitation is in excess of 20 inches, and
except for a very small portion of that
area the annual precipitation is between
30 and 80 inches of rainfall annually.
The other area, the West, is what was
known and described by Daniel Webster
and others as the Great American Desert.
Webster was of the opinion that that area
could not be developed. He was of the
opinion that it was utterly useless for
the United States to consider, even in a
passing way, the acquisition or develop¬
ment of that land: and yet we have lived
to see the time when it has been de¬
veloped into thriving and successful
States, in which people have established
prosperous businesses and homes.
All that growth in the West has been
dependent upon the utilization of water
by means of the application of the doc¬
trine of appropriation. When the pio¬
neers went west, when they went to the
Pacific coast to bring about the develop-
nierit of the gold and other minerals
there, they began the use of water in the
streams by right of appropriation. In
1863, and later in 1877, and later by
numerous other acts of Congress, the leg¬
islative body of this country has recog¬
nized the right of people to use water, as
distinct and separate from the land. In
other words, there has grown up the use
of water as a separate entity from the use
of the land itself. The doctrine of use of
water — not ownership, but use — has be¬
come the basis of all western growth. No
one in the West can assert ownership to
water and can hold it against develop¬
ment. If there is water which has been
appropriated by a user, but if the user
is not using it, and if another settler feels
he can make a beneficial use of it, he can
go to the courts and can obtain an ad¬
judication of his rights. That is the rea¬
son v/hy the courts — the Supreme Court
and all others — have stated that the use
of water in the West is a public matter.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri rose.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Missouri.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I should like
to say to the Senator that, regardless of
the various irrigation projects in the
arid and semiarid States, there is noth¬
ing in the am.endment which is intended
to interfere with the use of water by ap¬
propriation or to interfere with any other
rights which may exist in the arid or
semiarid States. The whole purpose of
the amendment is to establish a police
authority which will prevent the oper¬
ator of a dam, such as the dams I have
described in Oklahoma and Missouri,
from operating his dam in such a way as
to be a menace to both the property and
life below it.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I fully realize
that is the purpose.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Some of the
dams have been operated in a manner
which is as dangerous as having a man
go out into a street and fire a revolver up
and down the street. Many of the peo¬
ple living in that area have been con¬
stantly in the shadow of the fear that
the operator of the dam will operate it
in such a way as to endanger their lives
or property, or both.
I may say that the amendment is not
now in the form in which it was when I
introduced it. Also let me say that I
had no purpose of interfering with the
Western rights in connection with the
use of water.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I was quite sure
that was the Senator’s attitude. There
was no doubt in my mind that the Sen¬
ator had no intention whatsoever of
interfering with the traditional land
policy.
The point I wished to make, however,
was that which has already been made
by the Senator from Colorado, namely,
that the language of the amendment is
so broad that it would utterly tear down
and destroy the State system of adjudi¬
cation of water rights which has been
established over a long period of years,
because it would give the Secretary of
War the right to control dams on the
tributaries. Even though an Individual,
a lone farmer, in some distant tributary
creek in the very heights of the moun¬
tains had built a dam, if some person
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
War deemed it to be an improper dam,
it would be subject to the criminal provi¬
sion which is written into the bill.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Certainly.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Would it
meet the objections of the Senator if, in
lines 2 and S.’on page 46, the words “or
across tributaries thereof’’ were stricken?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Of course, that
would be an improvement.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The amend¬
ment is a committee amendment, and
of course I have no authority to agree
to eliminate those words.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I understand.
Mr. President, it is my belief that the
Interests of all parties will best be met
if the amendment is rejected, so that
opportunity will be given for further
study — and there will be further study —
as to the proper control of dams which
create the menace which the Senator
from Missouri so properly hopes to over¬
come.
Mr. President, I hope the amendment
will be rejected.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, let me say that the incidents to
which I have referred occurred 2 years
ago. The only evidence which has come
to my attention on the part of anyone
with respect to giving consideration to
those undoubted evils or bringing about
a correction of them is contained in the
pending amendment. Two years have
elapsed since that time, with the possi¬
bility of the occurrence of many more
such incidents.
Mr. GVERTON. Mr. President, what
the committee had in mind in accepting
the amendment offered by the able senior
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Clark] was
the control of dangerous dams so that
any menace to life and property would
be removed. That is the proper inter¬
pretation to be’ placed upon the amend¬
ment. We do not undertake to specify
what the dams are, but we say:
(b) Whenever it shall appear, after rea¬
sonable notice and opportunity for hearing
to the person or corporation owning or con¬
trolling any such dam, that such dam is
being operated or maintained In such a man¬
ner as to Jeopardize the safety of persons
or property either above or below such dam-.
So it is not to be supposed, as has been
suggested here in argument, that the
Chief of Engineers will undertake to con¬
trol all private dams throughout the
United States. What the Chief of Engi¬
neers will do under the terms of the
amendment will be simply to remove the
jeopardy and danger to life and property,
when they exist, caused by private dams.
That is the extent of the amendment.
It may be that the amendment in its
penal provisions is rather drastic, and I
am willing to concede that those pro¬
visions are rather drastic; but I think
probably they could be so modified in
conference as to remove the objection¬
able features.
The discussion has gone rather far
afield as to the rights of States and of
individuals in the navigable waters of
the United States. Mr. President, I do
not think there is any doubt whatsoever
that the Congress has supreme authority
over all navigable waters of the United
States, and that what are navigable
waters are not necessarily those waters
which are actually being subjected to
navigation. Navigable waters are those
which may be subjected to navigation;
navigable waters are those which in¬
fluence other waters which are subject
to navigation. That would probably take
in all streams and tributaries which flow
into any navigable stream.
In the course of the hearings I under¬
took to express the jurisprudence of the
United States Supreme Court on this
question, and I should like to read from
page 41 of the printed hearings. The
matter was under discussion and I m.ade
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8551
the following statement which I think is
a correct statement of all the decisions
of the United States Supreme Court
taken as a whole. I said:
As I understand It, the authority of the
Federal Government stems from the inter¬
state commerce clause and, of course, the
Constitution gives Congress control over navi¬
gable waters as an incident to its power to
regulate interstate commerce. Decisions of
the United States Supreme Court have, from
time to time, construed the power of the Con¬
gress over waterways. It is my understand¬
ing that any waterway that can reasonably
be improved so as to make it navigable in
interstate commerce is a navigable waterway
of the United States; that the waterway is
navigable even though it has ceased to be
used in interstate commerce; that the au¬
thority of Congress over navigable waters is
not limited to control solely for the purpose
of navigation but embraces all the needs of
commerce; that Congress may control non-
navigable parts of a river in order to pro¬
mote commerce on parts that are navigable;
that the power of Congress to protect any
navigable stream from fioo^ damage extends
to the control of tributaries to such streams;
that Congress alone is to decide whether any
given project, either considered by itself or
as part of a comprehensive plan, is justified
and should be authorized as having a bene¬
ficial effect on interstate commerce; and that
the courts cannot question the reasons or
the objectives that actuated Congress in vot¬
ing for a project. It is my opinion that the
power of Congress to regulate stream fiow
of waters that are either navigable in fact
or ultimately infiuence navigable streams
through the flow of water into the navigable
streams is Inseparably connected with and
is supported by the interstate commerce
clause of the Constitution.
Mr. President, I believe that what I
have read is a condensation of the juris¬
prudence of the United States Supreme
Court as I understand them to be.
Therefore, in reference to the rights of
Colorado or any other State, or of ripar¬
ian owners in Colorado, Montana, Wyo¬
ming, or any other State with respect to
navigable waters, as the word “naviga¬
ble” has been interpreted by the United
States Supreme Court, the argument has
no application whatsoever to this amend¬
ment.
The purpose of the amendment is to
protect human life and property. That
is all. As the Senator from Missouri in
two instances has pointed out, a dam
may be operated and maintained so im¬
properly as to constitute a jeopardy to
human life and property, and may result
in loss and material damage to property.
The purpose of the amendment is to vest
authority in someone to prevent improp¬
erly controlled dams from becoming
menaces to the communities in which
they are located.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, this is a committee amendment,
and, therefore, I have no authority to
modify it. But, in order to meet objec¬
tions which have been urged, I ask unan¬
imous consent to modify the committee
amendment on page 46, in line 2, after
the words “United States”, by striking
out “or across tributaries thereof.”
Mr. OVERTON. That would make the
language then applicable only to navi¬
gable waters.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That is cor¬
rect.
Mr. OVERTON. Or the main stem.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That is cor¬
rect.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I inquire. What is the
definition of “navigable waters”? We
have been told many times in the past
that any stream capable of flowing pulp-
wood at any time during the year would
come within the definition of navigable
waters. That would mean practically
any stream, whatever its size might be.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The term
“navigable” has been defined many times.
Mr. AIKEN. I know it has. I am
merely asking for information. Is not
a navigable stream one which will float
pulpwood at any time?
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, as I
said awhile ago, any stream may be
considered to be actually navigable if
it may be improved for navigable pur¬
poses or flows into streams or influences
streams which are navigable.
Mr. AIKEN. So the definition of the
term “navigable” would reach up into
the creeks.
Mr. OVERTON.. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. The amendment offered
by the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Clark] would not protect a person oper¬
ating a little sawmill in the hills on a
tributary of a navigable stream. In New
England there are streams which furnish
power for about 6 weeks during the year.
I have one in mind which is large enough
during the spring run-off to permit the
operation of a plant to manufacture suf¬
ficient lumber to enable the operation of
another small plant during the remain¬
der of the year. There are other small
streams which furnish a little power off
and on for local industries. They do not
permit the employment of any help
except the owner of the dam.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, it seems to me to be far-fetched to
suggest that the Corps of Engineers will
go around to the operator of such a small
sawmill as has been referred to by the
Senator from Vermont and hale the op¬
erator into court, or that such an exam¬
ple should be taken as an excuse for not
preventing tremendous disasters on the
main stems of large rivers. It is not my
purpose to bring about such results, and
I do not believe the proposed amend¬
ment is subject to any such construction
as the Senator points out. It is not my
purpose to interfere with little sawmills,
and it is inconceivable to me that the
Corps of Engineers would do such a thing,
and yet, if a mill were being operated in
such a way as to create a menace to the
people along the stream below the mill,
the mill should be regulated.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I believe
the Senator is correct. I recall that sev¬
eral years ago a prominent official said
that the Government authorities had
jurisdiction over the land through which
small streams flowed. I think that is
covering too much territory. However,
I was merely seeking information.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I will say
very frankly to the Senator from Ver¬
mont that I am not familiar with local
conditions as to the control of small
streams.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re¬
quest of the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
Clark] that the commttee amendment
on page 46, line 2, after the words
“United States”, be modified by striding
out “or across tributaries thereof”? The
Chair hears none, and the committee
amendment is modified accordingly.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, on page 46, line 22, after the word
“section”, I offer an amendment to insert
the following in the committee amend¬
ment: “and found to be operating or
maintaining a dam in such a manner as
to jeopardize the safety of persons or
property either above or below such
dam.”
That language would provide for court
review, and I believe it would meet the
objection which was heretofore made to
summary process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Mis¬
souri [Mr. Clark] to the committee
amendment.
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question recurs on agreeing to the modi¬
fied committee amendment as amended.
The modified amendment as amended
was rejected.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, a par¬
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator will state it.
Mr. OVERTON. That disposes of all
the committee amendments, does it not,
except the committee amendments
which are affected by the O’Mahoney
amendment?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the
so-called O’Mahoney-Millikin amend¬
ment embraces, as the Senator from
Louisiana knows, several topics including
the Connecticut River Basin. Some ob¬
jection has been made on behalf of the
Senators from Vermont to the work
which has been authorized in the State
of Vermont, and an effort has been made
to reach an understanding between the
Senators from Vermont, the representa¬
tive of the Government, the Senator
from Louisiana, and the Army engineers
in respect to precisely what can and
should be done.
The senior Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Austin] was unexpectedly called
out of the city on Saturday night by an
important law matter to which he is now
attending in the State of Vermont. I
telephoned to him and he advised me
that it is his hope to be here tomorrow
morning.
Language has been suggested by the
representatives of the Governor of Ver¬
mont and the junior Senator from
Vermont which seems to me, to the Sen¬
ator from Colorado [Mr. Millikin], and
to others who have been in conference
to be quite satisfactory, and I believe the
language also is substantially agreeable
to the Senator from Louisiana. But it
will be necessary for us, I think, to pre¬
sent this matter to the senior Senator
November 27
8552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
from Vermont. Therefore I f6cl that
the understanding which was reached
this morning that this matter should go
over should be adhered to, so that when
the Senate reassembles tomorrow we
ought to be in a position to lay the mat¬
ter before the Senate and before the
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, it is
my understanding, if the Senator will
yield to me, that that subsection (b) , the
provision in reference to the Connecti¬
cut River Basin, will be deleted entirely
from the O’Mahoney amendment and
will come up as a separate and inde¬
pendent amendment either in connec¬
tion with an amendment proposed by the
committee or in some other way. In
any event, either Senator or both Sena¬
tors from Vermont may offer such
amendment as they desire, and it will
be disposed of as a separate amendment
and not connected with the O’Mahoney
amendment.
Furthermore, the Senators from Con¬
necticut and the Senators from Massa¬
chusetts, who are vitally interested in
the Connecticut River Basin, may pro¬
pose amendments of their own or op¬
pose the amendment suggested by the
Senators from Vermont.
What I want to do is to agree with
the Senator from Wyoming and the
Senator from Colorado and other co¬
sponsors of the O’Mahoney-Millikin
amendment on provisions in relation to
the Missouri River Basin. The Connecti¬
cut River Basin camiot, in my opinion,
be handled under subsection (b) and
there will never be an agreement so long
as subsection (b) is in the O’Mahoney
amendment. However, the whole mat¬
ter of the Connecticut River Basin can
be very easily handled independently of
the O’Mahoney amendment,' and should
be so handled, and it can be handled
after the elimination of subsection (b)
from the O’Mahoney amendment.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, 1
will say for the information of the Sen¬
ator and of the Senate that our pur¬
pose is to bring about the elimination
of subsection (b) from this amendment.
Whether it will be desirable to do that
by way of treating the Connecticut River
Valley altogether separately or as a part
cf section (a) is a matter which I feel
we are under obligation to discuss with
the senior Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Austin] since we have not had that op¬
portunity.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Presidei^t, I ask the
Senator from Wyoming if it is the pur¬
pose or is it the proposal now to lay
this bill, with the thought that all that
remains of a controversial nature is the
O’Mahoney amendment and other
amendments relating to the same gen¬
eral subject matter or proceeding along
the same principle as the O’Mahoney
amendment.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. So far as I can see
1 think that these are probably the last
controversial items unless it be the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Montana [Mr. Murray] with respect to
the Missouri Valley Authority or the
amendment of the Senator from Ver¬
mont (Mr. Aiken] with respect to the
St. Lawrence seaway. I have not been
consulted about the latter amendment,
and I do not know what the purpose of
the sponsor of the St. Lawrence seaway
may be but I think we are coming pretty
close to an understanding upon this
measure.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I would
not agree to preclude any amendment
that might be offered to this bill by
any one of the 96 Senators from the floor.
There might be other Senators who have
amendments to offer to the bill. I do
not think that we should accept the idea
at this time that we are through with
amendments.
As to the St. Lawrence amendment it¬
self, I had intended to wait until all other
amendments were disposed of. I do not
know really whether it will be offered
or not.
Mr. WHITE. The Senator from Ver¬
mont wants to know what the condition
of the weather is when the other amend¬
ments are disposed of?
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Maine
is exactly correct about that. I want
to know what the bill looks like when the
time comes to offer the amendment.
Mr. WHITE. If I may have the at¬
tention of the distinguished Senator
from Louisiana in charge of the bill, as I
understand, then, it is the opinion of the
distinguished Senator that we can dis¬
continue consideration of the bill for the
remainder of the afternoon. Of course,
if the bill should be laid aside to take up
any other bill it will be with the under¬
standing that it will be laid aside only
temporarily, which would mean that the
bill could be taken up for consideration
the very first thing tomorrow. Is not
that so, I will ask the Senator from
Louisiana?
Mr. OVERTON. That is correct".
Mr. WHITE. I take it, then, with the
further understanding that any Senator
may offer other amendments on his own
responsibility.
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly.
The Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Millikin] has an amendment to which,
I understand, there is no objection. It is
a modification of a project which is au¬
thorized by the bill and that will entail
very little if any additional cost. Is that
correct?
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, on
Friday I offered that amendment. It is
the amendment on page 16 at the end of
line 20, and as it is very brief I will read
it. It says;
Provided, That the project —
Which is a project on the Purgatoire
River designed to make the town of
Trinidad safe from floods —
Provided, That the project may he modi¬
fied to include storage in reservoirs upstream
from Trinidad if the Secretary of War and
the Chief of Engineers find such action ad¬
visable for flood control and in order to make
more water readily available for' agricultural
and industrial uses without Impairment of
flood control for Trinidad.
The amendment was offered on behalf .
of the senior Senator from Colorado
[Mr. Johnson] and myself. It is my un¬
derstanding that it may be possible to
add perhaps a reservoir upstream from
Trinidad which will render the project a
better flood-control project and at the
same time might admit of some irriga¬
tion. I do not understand that the cost
will be substantially greater, but if the
evolution of the plan should take us into
unexpectedly high costs then the matter
may be taken up before the Appropria¬
tions Committee.
I appreciate the courtesy of the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Louisiana in
not offering any objection to the amend¬
ment.
Mr. OVERTON. Modifications are to
be left to the discretion of the engineers?
Mr. MILLIKIN. Yes.
Mr. OVERTON. I have no objection
to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator fro'm Colo¬
rado [Mr. Millikin].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I present another
amendment which I ask to have stated.
. The PRESIDING OFFICER' The
clerk will state the amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 16, it is
proposed to strike out the period at the
end of line 1, insert a colon, and add the
following; “Provided, That the project
may be modified to include storage in
reservoirs upstream from Trinidad if the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engi¬
neers find such action advisable for flood
control and in order to make more water
readily available for agricultural and in¬
dustrial uses without impairment of
flood control for Trinidad.”
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I have
conferred with the Senator from Louisi¬
ana about an amendment which I am
sure is not controversial. It is of an
emergency nature, and I believe this is
an opportune time to take it up. I send
the amendment to the desk and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 40, line 16,
it is proposed to add the following:
The sum of $500,000 additional is author¬
ized to be appropriated as an emergency fund
to be expended under the direction of the
Secretary of War and the supervision of the
Chief of Engineers for the construction of
emergency protection works to prevent flood
damage to highways, bridge approaches, and
public works : Provided, That pending the ap¬
propriation^ of said sum, the Secretary of
War may allot from existing flood-control
appropriations such sums as may be necessary
for the immediate prosecution of such bank
protection works; such appropriations to be
reimbursed from the appropriation herein
authorized when made.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, in con¬
versations with the Army engineers, it
has appeared that there are many proj¬
ects of an emergency nature which, even
in wartime, need some protection work.
Because these matters come up when
rivers are in flood, they must be handled
quickly. If they can be handled quickly,
and it is not necessary to wait for an
appropriation by Congress, the public
works can be protected with an expendi¬
ture of a small amount of money.
An emergency fund is in the hands of
the Chief of Army Engineers to handle
river damage where it affects navigation,
but there are no emergency funds for
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8553
flood control emergencies. So I asked
the Senator from Louisiana if this
amendment would meet with his ap¬
proval, and after he studied it he told
me that he had no objection to accept¬
ing the amendment. I hope the Senate
will accept it at this time.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
Senator’s statement is correct. 'l have
no objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from South
Dakota tMr. Gurney].
The amendment was agreed to.
EXTENSION OP STATUTE OP LIMITA¬
TIONS IN PEARL HARBOR CASES
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask
that the Senate now proceed to consider
Senate Joint Resolution 156, Calendar
No. 1171.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, does the
Senator ask that the pending bill be
temporarily laid aside and that the joint
resolution be taken uo?
Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. I
understood that the majority leader had
no objection to this course. I talked
with him last week, at the time I intro¬
duced the joint resolution. It is a meas¬
ure to extend the statute of limitations
in relation to the court martials having
to do with the Pearl Harbor catastrophe.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Sen¬
ator from Michigan has said that he
talked with the majority leader. I
merely wish to call his attention to the
fact that we discussed the matter on the
floor of the Senate, and the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Barkley] stated he
wanted this joint resolution passed, and
asked that it be passed at the earliest
possible time.
Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator is cor¬
rect. The Record shows that the Sena¬
tor from Kentucky stated on the floor
that he did want the joint resolution
considered and acted upon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the joint resolution?
There being no objection, the joint
resolution (S. J. Res. 156) to extend the
statute of limitation in certain cases,
was considered, ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed, as follows;
Resolved, etc.. That effective as of Decem¬
ber 7, 1943, all statutes, resolutions, laws,
articles, and regulations, affecting the pos¬
sible prosecution of any person or persons,
military or civil, connected with the Pearl
Harbor catastrophe of December 7, 1941, or
Involved in any other possible or apparent
dereliction of duty, or crime or offense against
the United States, that operate to prevent
the court martial, prosecution, trial, or pun¬
ishment of any person or persons in military
or civil capacity, Involved in any matter in
connection with the Pearl Harbor catastrophe
of December 7, 1941, or involved in any other
possible or apparent dereliction of duty, or
crime or offense against the United States,
are hereby extended for a further period of
6 months, in addition to the extensions pro¬
vided for in Public Law 208, Seventy-eighth
Congress, and Public Law 339, Seventy-eighth
Congress.
ADDITIONAL JUDGE FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, it is my in¬
tention at this time to ask for a quorum
in order that consent may be obtained
to proceed to the consideration of bills
on the calendar to which there is no
objection, starting where we left off at the
last call.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there are
two bills which I do. not think would come
within the call of the calendar the Sena¬
tor has mentioned, which I have been
discussing for several days with the ma¬
jority and minority leaders, and with
Senators from various States, and all are
in accord that the bill should be passed,
and should be passed quickly. They are
bills providing for an additional judge
for the third circuit, and removing the
restriction which applies to the filling
of a vacancy in the eastern district of
Pennsylvania. There is another bill
which provides for the creation of an
additional judgeship in New Jersey. The
Judicial Conference, and the leaders ^n
both sides of the Chamber, are agreed
as to the desirability of action on those
bills, and I should like to have them
considered.
Mr. HILL. If the distinguished acting
chairman of the Committee on the Judi¬
ciary tells me he has consulted with the
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Barkley],
certainly I have no objection.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for
the present consideration of House bill
3750, Calendar 1058.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc¬
Farland in the chair) . The bill will be
stated by title.
The Chief Clerk. A bill (H. R. 3750)
to provide for the appointment of an ad¬
ditional circuit judge for the third cir¬
cuit, and to permit the filling of the first
vacancy occurring in the office of district
judge for the eastern district of Pennsyl¬
vania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the bill was
considered, ordered to a third reading,
read the third time, and passed.
REMOVAL OP PROHIBITION RELATING TO
DISTRICT JUDGESHIP IN NEW JERSEY
Mr. HATCH. Now, Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent for the present
- consideration of Calendar No. 1169,
House bill 3732.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be reported by title.
The Chief Clerk. A bill (H. R. 3732)
to repeal the prohibition against the fill¬
ing of a vacancy in the office of district
judge in the district of New Jersey.
Mr. WHITE. Reserving the right to
object for the moment, Mr. President,
the Senator from New Mexico has been
good enough to speak to me about some
bills on the calendar which I thought he
was to ask to have considered. He said
he had conferred with the Senators from
the respective States with respect to the
bills, but this measure is something new.
May I ask whether the Senator has dis¬
cussed the bill with the Senators from
New Jersey?
Mr. HATCH. Probably the Senator
did not remember, but I did mention this
specific bill to him. Yes; I have dis¬
cussed ijt with both Senators from New
Jersey, and they favor the passage of
the bill. So far as the amendment is con¬
cerned, it is a technical amendment.
Unfortunately, in drafting the bill, the
wrong section of the statute was referred
to, and the amendment corrects that
error.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which had
been reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary with an amendment, to strike
out all after the enacting clause and to
insert the following;
That the proviso in subsection (a) of sec¬
tion 2 of the act approved May 24, 1940 (54
Stat. 219: U. S. C. 1940, title 28, sec. 1, note) ,
entitled "An act to provide for the appoint¬
ment of additional district and circuit
Judges”, be, and it is hereby, amended to read
as follows: “(a) Provided, That the first va¬
cancy occurring in the office of district judge
In each of said districts, except the district
of New Jersey, shall not be filled.”
Sec. 2. That subsection (d) of the act ap¬
proved April 28, 1942 (56 Stat. 247, U. S. C.
1940, Supp., title 28, sec. 1, note), is hereby
repealed.
The amendment was agreed to.
"The amendment was ordered to be en¬
grossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time and
tys.sed ■
Mr. HILL. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names;
Aiken
Gerry
Overton
Bailey
Gillette
Pepper
Ball
Green
Radcliffe
Bankhead
Guffey
Revercomb
Bilbo
Gurney
Reynolds
Brooks
Hall
Robertson
Buck
, Hatch
Bussell
Burton
Hayden
Shlpstead
Bushfield
Hill
Taft
Butler
Jenner
Thomas, Idaho
Byrd
Johnson. Calif.
Thomas, Okla.
Capper
Johnson, Colo.
Tunnell
Caraway
La Follette
Tydlngs
Chandler
Larger
Vandenberg
Clark, Idaho
M6Clellan
Wallgren
Clark, Mo.
McFarland
Walsh, Mass.
Connally
McKellar
Walsh, N. J.
Cordon
Maloney
Weeks
Davis
Maybank
V/heeler
Downey
Mlllikin
Wherry
Ejistland
Murray
White
Ellender
Nye
Willis
Ferguson
O’Daniel
George
O'Mahoney
Mr. WHITE. The junior Senator frcm
Wisconsin [Mr. Wiley] was present ear¬
lier in the day, but he has been called
from the Chamber on official business and
is therefore necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy
Senators having answered to their names,
a quorum is present.
MESSAGES PROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States submitting nomina¬
tions were communicated to the Senate
by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.
THE CALENDAR
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask unani¬
mous consent that the unfinished busi¬
ness be temporarily laid aside, and that
the Senate proceed to the consideration
of bills on the calendar to which there is
• no objection, beginning where the last
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8554
call left off, which would be Calendar
No. 1158.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will state the bills on the cal¬
endar, beginning with Calendar 1158.
BILLS PASSED OVER
The bill (S. 637) to authorize the ap¬
propriation of funds to assist the States
and Territories in more adequately-
financing their systems of public educa¬
tion, during emergency, and in reducing
the inequalities of educational opportu¬
nities through public elementary and
secondary schools, was announced as
first in order.
Several Senators. Over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be passed over.
AMENDMENT OF VETERANS’
RE OBLATIONS
The bill (H. R. 5041) to amend the Vet¬
erans’ Regulations, was announced as
next in order.
Mr. VANDENEERG. Mr. President,
may we have an explanation of that bill?
If not, let the bill go over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be passed over.
Mr. VANDENEERG subsequently said :
May I ask the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
Burton! if what he has just said in con¬
nection with Calendar 1163, House bill
4999, just passed, applies to Calendar
1162, House bill 5041, which I asked to
have go over in the absence of an ex¬
planation?
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, Calen¬
dar 1164, House bill 86, relafes to widows
of Civil War veterans who were married
to the veterans subsequent to June 26,
1905, which v/as before World War No.T.
The adjustment provided for in this bill
is not the same type of adjustment as is
provided by House bill 5041, Calendar
1162. The purpose of House bill 83 is
to bring the treatment in line with that
given to other widows, but the bill does
not relate to veterans of either World
War No. 1 or World War No. 2. All
three Calendar Nos. 1162, 1163, and 1164
relate to veterans of wars before World
War No. 1, and the purpose of Calendar
No. 1162 is quite similar to that of Cal¬
endar 1163.
Mr. VANDENEERG. Mr. President, I
withdraw my objection to the consider¬
ation of Calendar 1162, House bill 5041.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the bill was
considered, ordered to a third reading,
read the third time, and passed.
DISABILITY PENSIONS FOR CERTAIN
VETERANS
The bill (H. R. 4999) to increase the
service-connected disability rates of pen¬
sions for certain Regular Establishment
veterans and veterans of wars prior to
World War No. 1 was announced as next
in order.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I should
like to have an explanation of that bill.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, as a
member of the Committee on Pensions, I
believe that I can point out the main pur¬
pose. It is to correct a situation relat¬
ing to the adjustment of disability rates
of pensions for certain Regular Estab¬
lishment veterans and veterans of wars
prior to World War No. 1. It deals large¬
ly with veterans who have not been in¬
jured as a result of combat service, or do
not have wartime service-connected dis¬
abilities. We recently increased the
pensions based on wartime service-con¬
nected disabilities, but failed to change
the compensation to the so-called peace¬
time veterans, which always has been
on the basis of 75 percent of the war¬
time service -connected disabilities. This
measure reestablishes the same ratio for
the two classes of pensions that has
existed before. It brings the various
rates into line, on the same basis as that
previously established.
Mr. VANDENEERG. - On what theory
was this bill referred to the Committee
on Pensions, when pension legislation is
ordinarily handled almost exclusively by
the Committee on Finance?
Mr. BURTON. That goes back of my
own personal experience; but I under¬
stand that the Committee on Pensions
has handled pension matter relating to
veterans of wars before World War No.
1 and World War No. 2.
Mr. VANDENEERG. Then, as I un¬
derstand, the bill relates entirely to the
time preceding World War No. 1.
Mr. BURTON. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the bill (H. R.
4999) to increase the service-connected
disability rates of pension for certain
Regular Establishment veterans and vet¬
erans of wars prior to World War No. 1,
was considered, ordered to a third read¬
ing, read the third time, and passed.
PENSIONS TO ■ CERTAIN UNREMARRIED
DEPENDENT WIDOWS OF CIVIL WAR
VETERANS
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (H. R. 86) to grant pensions to cer¬
tain unremarried dependent widows of
Civil War veterans who were married to
the veteran subsequent to June 26,
1905, which had been reported from the
Committee on Pensions with amend¬
ments.
The first amendment was, in section 2,
on page 2, line 25, after “Administra¬
tion”, to insert “after the date of enact¬
ment of this”; on page 3, line 2, after the
word “Affairs”, to strike out the comma
and “but not prior to the date of enact¬
ment of this act”; and in line 5, after
the word “once”, to insert “since the
death of the veteran.”
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, on page 3,
after line 10, to strike out:
Sec. 3. No agent, attorney, or other person
shall, directly or Indirectly, solicit, contract
for, charge, or receive any fee or compensa¬
tion for preparing or assisting in the prep¬
aration of the necessary papers in the appli¬
cation to the Veterans’ Administration for
benefits under this act. Any person who
shall, dhectly or indirectly, solicit, contract
for, charge, or receive any fee or compensa¬
tion for such preparation or assistance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and .each and
every offense shall be punishable by a fine
of not more than $500 or Imprisonment at
November 27
hard labor for not more than 2 years, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
The amendment was agreed to. ,
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time and
passed.
BERTHA L. TATRAULT
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (S. 1900) for the relief of Bertha L.
Tatrault, which had been reported from
the Committee on Claims with an
amendment, to strike out all after the
enacting clause, and insert:
That Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon
the United States District Court for the Dis¬
trict of Massachusetts to hear, determine, and
render judgment upon the- claim of the
estate of Bertha L. Tatrault, late of West-
boro, Mass., against the United States for the
death of the said Bertha L. Tatrault, as the
result of personal injuries sustained by her
wfien the horse-drawn wagon in which she
was riding as a passenger was struck by a
United States Coast Guard vehicle on route
No. 9, east of Park Street, in Westboro, Mass.,
on September 7, 1943.
Sec. 2. In the determination of such claim,
the United States shall be held liable for
damages, and for any acts committed by any
of its officers or employees, ■ to the. same ex¬
tent as if the United States were a private
person.
Sec. 3. Suit upon such claim may be In¬
stituted at any time within 1 year after the
enactment of this act, notwithstanding the
lapse of time or any statute of limitations.
Proceedings for the determination of such
claim, and appeals from and payment of any
judgment thereon, shall be in the same man¬
ner as in the case of claims over which such
court has jurisdiction under the provisions
of paragraph “Twentieth” of section 24 of
the Judicial Code, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The biU was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
“A bill conferring jurisdiction upon the
United States District Court for the Dis¬
trict of Massachusetts to hear, deter¬
mine, and render judgment upon the
claim of the estate of Bertha L. Tat¬
rault.”
MARJORIE E. DRAKE AND OTHERS
The Senate procfeeded to consider the
bill (S. 1740) for the relief of Marjorie
E. Drake, Edith Mae Drake, Minnie L.
Bickford, and Irene M. Paolini which had
been reported from the Committee on
Claims with an amendment, to strike out
all after the enacting clause and insert:
That jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon
the United States District Court for the Dis¬
trict of Massachusetts to hear, determine,
and render judgment upon the claims of
Marjorie E. Drake, Edith Mae Drake, Minnie
L. Bickford, and Irene M. Paolini, all of
Westboro, Mass., against the United States
for compensation for personal Injuries sus¬
tained by them when the horse-drawn wagon
in which they were riding as passengers was
struck by a United States Coast Guard vehicle
on Route No. 9, east of Park Street, in West¬
boro, Mass., on September 7, 1943, and for
reimbursement of medical, hospital, and
other expenses incurred by them as a result
of such injuries.
Sec. 2. In the determination of such claims,
the United States shall be held liable for
damages, and for any acts committed by any
l3
OITICE OF BUDGET MD FINANCE
Legislative Reports and 'Service Section
7Sth-2nd, No. l64
»
digest of proceedings op CONGRESS OF INTEP-EST TO^ THE DiEPARTMENT OF. AGRICULTURE
(Issued November 29, 1944, for potions of Tuesday, November 2S^ 1944;^
(For staff of the Department only)
CONTENTS. '■
Appropriation. ...... ,6,6
Clothing . IS
Congressional organ¬
ization . 21
Credit unions . l4
Crop insurance . 2
) Disbursement. ........ .10
Flood control . 1,19
Health . 13
Labor, farm.
Missouri Valley
'Authority . ‘Jil^ >
Nominations . 4
Personnel . 13 '
Post-war planning.. 4, S
Property management . .l6
Public v;o rks . S
Reclamation . 20
SENATE
Road authorizations .12,17
St. Lawrence water¬
way . 5
Stsaiir. business . 11
Tariffs. . . ..9
War mobilization and
reconversion . 4
War powers.. . 7
1. FLOOD CONTROL. Continued debate on H. R. 4485', the flood-control bill (pp.
8607-23).
Agreed to that part of the O’Mahoney amendment which provides'fdr State
participation in planning projects, so as to protect the State interests (pp.
8607-15).
Agreed to several amendments by Sen. Davis, Pa., regarding proposed War
Department projects in his State (p. 8623). " .
Debated that part of 'the O’Mahoney amendment which restricts the carrying
out of several Conn, projects and which, Sen. Maloney (Conn.) said, ’’would do
violence” to that State (pp. 8615-23).
2. CROP INSUEIANCE. As passed by the House and referred to the Senate Committee on
••■Agriculture and Forestry, H. R,' 4911, to amend the Federal. Crop Insurance Act,
provides for insurance, commencing with the 1945 crop year, on wheat cotton,
and flax crops against loss in yield from unavoidable causes; limits such
insurance to 75 percent of average yield, subject to . adjustment by the Board
farther restricting coverage to investment in the crop based on costs, but
excluding losses due. to negligence of the producer; prohibits a. crop-insurance
program in any county unless applications are received from at least. 50 or
1/3 of the farms of each county but permits insurance on farms bordering speh
counties; permits, subject to the foregoing provisions, insurance on other
agricultural commodities, if sufficient actuarial data’ are available, in not •
over 20 coihaties selected by the Board for a per-iod of no*t over 3 years, i-n ■
.order to determine the most practical plans, terms, and conditions with
, respect to such insurance; authorizes the Board to fix premiums and, to estab¬
lish reserves; limits administrative expenses after crop year 1945 to 25 per¬
cent of the premiums colle’cted in preceding year'; authorizes payments on
claims, provided that if claims for payments exceed total premiums plus
reserves, such claims shall be paid on a pro rata reduced basis, except that
during the first 3 years payments shall not be reduced more than 15 percenl
• f. the amount of the approved claim; and permits court action within one year
after any claim is denied by FCIC,
3. MISSOURI VALLEY AUTHORITY, Both Houses received the President’s message
favoring creation of a. Missouri Valley Authority ■■ as proposed in, the Chief of
Engineers’ and the Bureau of Reclamation’s reconciliation report on the
subject (ppi 8601-4, 8627). '
4. lOMIHATIOITS*. Confirmed without ohjection the nomins-tions of the members of
the Office of Var Mobilization and Reconversion advisory board which include •
E. A. 0*ITeal, Jajnes G. Patton, and Albert S.. Goss as the agriculture members
on the board (p. 8624).
5. ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY. Sen, Aiken, Tt., inserted Grover B. Hill*s letter and
an Alabama Journal (Montgomery, Ala.) editorial favoring this proposed
project (p, 8606). , . . .• > .....
. OTSE.. . . .
6. EAHM LABOR APPROPRXATIOR* Received from, the President a proposal to ^continue ■
the authority and funds for the operation and administrative emenses of the
farm labor supply program through. June 30» 1945, (H, Eoc. 7^35 .(Pr S657)»
The present funds.and authority expire on December 31* 19^^* In. his letter •
to the President, the Director of the Budget Bureau stated that. he believes,
an estimate covering the complete program for the calendar year 1945 should be
deferred until the early part of the year and that the provision to continue
the present funds is being submitted so as to .provide continuity in the pro-
gram until it is possible to secure legislative consideration of the'future
program. Hearings ■ before the Deficiency Subcommittee of the House Committee
on Appropriations are scheduled for Wednesday, November 29.
7. WAR POWERS, Judiciary Committee reported v;ith amendment H. R, 4993 » to extend
the Second- War Powers Act (H, Rept. 1959)' (p* 6658),
Rules Committee reported a resolution for consideration of this, bill
(p. 8655). ' ■
8. pUBLIC-WOEZS ^PROPRIATION. Received from the President a supplemental ap--
propriation estimate of $75i900»000 for advances and loans (through PWA)_ to •
encourage the- planning of post-war uublic wo-rks by States, counties, and’-' •
municipalities (H, Doc. 7S'^. (p, 8657) »
9. COCONUT TARIPP. Ways- and Means Committee reported with amendment H. R. 1033 »
to -suspend during the- wa.r emergency the tariff on coconuts (H, Rept, 1949)
(p, 865s), ■ - ' '
10. DI-SBURSEMEiTTS. • Exp e.nd it ur.es in the Executive . Departments Committee reported'
withqut amendment H.. R. 50^2, authorizing disbiursin^ officers, during the ' war
emergency- and for official purposes or to .accommodate civilian Government
-•personnel, to cash and negotiate checks and'other instruments payable inU.S,
-and foreign currencies, -and to conduct exchange transactions involving U.S, '
and foreign money, checks, etc. (H. Rept. 1945) (p* S657)» -
11. SMALL BUSINESS. Rules. Committee reported a resolution for consideration of
S,. 20.04, to increase the capital stock of' the Smaller War Plants Corporation
(p. 8655). ■ ,
#
12. ROAD AUTHORIZATIONS, Continued debate on this bill, H. R. 4915 ^PP» 8629-5^)*
Agreed to the followdng.-amendment s.;
By- Rep*. Wolcott, Mich.,, to., provide that the "first post-war fiscal year
shall be the fiscal year 1945 or as otherw.ise directed by the Congress"
(p, S632).
By Rep. Randolph, W. Va., to prohibit the requirement that States shall
acquire title to any marginal land along the proposed highw^ay in addition
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8807
Colonel Keesling recommended that
the legislative deferment review commit¬
tee file authorized Government requests
fqr employees of the legislative branch of
the Government who are 30 years of age
and over in order to preclude any dis¬
crimination against them by freeing the
hands of the local boards so that they
may classify such legislative employees
on the same basis as private employees
and employees of the other two branches
of the Government. As a part of his
recommendation, Colonel Keesling sug¬
gested that the committee in filing au¬
thorized Government requests in behalf
of employees in that age group expressly
Indicate that the requests are being made
solely on the basis of the registrant’s be¬
ing regularly engaged in an activity in
support of the national health, safety,
or interest, as set forth in the selective-
service regulations, and that the com¬
mittee is making no assertions that the
employee is irreplaceable or is engaged
in an activity in war production.
After considering these comments and
recommendations, the legislative defer¬
ment review committee decided that it
would file authorized Government re¬
quests on a basis similar to that fol¬
lowed by the other two branches of the
Government in behalf of employees 30
years of age and over so as to permit
Selective Service local boards to classify
them on a comparable basis with other
registrants.
As chairman of the legislative branch
deferment review committee, I am bring¬
ing this to the attention of Members
of the Senate and of the House of Rep¬
resentatives in order that they may be
informed of the committee’s action in
this regard, and will submit to the com¬
mittee appropriate information concern¬
ing employees on their committees or
in their individual offices as a basis upon
which the committee may take action.
Senators may obtain information from
my office, and Members of the House may
obtain information from the office of
Representative May, who is chairman of
the House members of the committee.
ADDRESS BY SENATOR CONNALLY AT
PRESENTATION OP HUMANITARIAN
AWARD TO SECRETARY HULL
[Mr. HATCH asked and obtained leave to
have printed In the Record the address de¬
livered on November 24, 1944, by Senator
CoNNALLT on the occasion of the presenta¬
tion of the Humanitarian Award to Secre¬
tary of State Hull by the Variety Clubs of
America, which appears in the Appendix.]
PRESENTATION OP HUMANITARIAN
AWARD TO THE SECRETARY OP
STATE— REMARKS BY EDWARD R.
STETTINIUS AND JAMES P. BYRNES,
AND LETTER PROM THE PRESIDENT OP
THE UNITED STATES
[Mr. WALSH of New Jersey asked and
obtained leave to have printed in the Record
the remarks of the Acting Secretary of
State, Hon. Edward R. Stettinlus, the re¬
marks of the Honorable James P. Byrnes,
and a letter from the President of the United
States to Carter Barron, general chairman of
the Variety Clubs of America, on the occa¬
sion of presentation of the Humanitarian
Award to Hon. Cordell Hull, Secretary of
State, by the Variety Clubs of America, which
appear in the Appendix.]
^THE DUMBARTON OAKS PLAN— ARTICLE
t . BY SENATOR CONNALLY
^ [Mr. BILBO asked and obtained leave to
|iave printed in the Record an article on
the Dumbarton Oaks plan, written by Sena¬
tor CoNNALLY, and published in the Wash¬
ington Post of November 26, 1944, which ap¬
pears in the Appendix.]
►HE STETTINIUS APPOINTMENT-
ARTICLE IN PM
[Mr. LANGER asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an article en¬
titled “The Stettinius Appointment,” writ¬
ten by Max Lerner, editor of PM, and pub¬
lished ha the issue of PM on November 28,
1944, which appears in the Appendix.]
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER DEVELOPMENT-
EDITORIAL FROM CHICAGO DAILY
NEWS
[Mr. AIKEN asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an editorial en¬
titled “More Conversation?” relating to the
St. Lawrence River development, published
in the Chicago Daily News of November 20,
1944, which appears in the Appendix.]
DEWEY H. DAVIS
Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I ask
that the Chair lay before the Senate
House bill 3373, for the relief of Dewey H.
Davis, and I shall make a brief explana¬
tion of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair lays before the Senate a bill com¬
ing over from the House of Representa¬
tives, which will be read.
The bill (H. R. 3373) for the relief of
Dewey H. Davis was read twice by its
title.
Mr. GEORGE. Mr, President, on
September 21 last the Senate passed a
bill for the same atnount carried in the
bill just read, namely, $5,000, to com¬
pensate the claimant for personal in¬
juries received. It went to the House of
Representatives, and the House took no
action upon the bill, but on November
21, 60 days later, the House passed an
identical bill, so far as the amount was
concerned, for the relief of this particu¬
lar claimant, Dewey H. Davis. I have
conferred with the chairman of the
Committee on Claims of the Senate, and
it is entirely unnecessary to have the bill
go to the committee. I therefore ask
that the Senate proceed to the present
consideration of the House bill.
’There being no objection, the bill
(H. R. 3373) for the relief of Dewey H.
Davis was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed,
LT. JAMES H. CLARK AND ELEANOR CLARK
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, yes¬
terday the Senate passed Senate bill 2098,
for the relief of Lt. James H. Clark and
Eleanor Clark. On the day it was re¬
ported from the Committee on Claims,
an identical bill was received from the
House and referred to the Committee on
Claims.
I ask unanimous consent that the Com¬
mittee on Claims be discharged from the
further consideration of the House bill,
H. R. 4929, that it be considered as hav¬
ing been considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed,
and that the vote on the passage of the
Senate bill be reconsidered and the bill
indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the junior
Senator from Louisiana? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
FLOOD- CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
Mr. OVER'TON. Mr. President, I pre¬
sume the regular order of business now
is to proceed to the consideration of
House bill 4485.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
the pending order of business.
Mr. OVERTON. As I understand the
situation, we have acted upon all the
committee amendments and some other
amendments, with the exception of the
amendments which are covered by the
O’Mahoney amendments. I think, there¬
fore, it would be proper now for the Sen¬
ator from Wyoming to present his
amendments.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
have already sent to the desk the text of
the amendments upon which a group of
Senators representing New England and
the West have been at work for several
months. The subject matter of these
amendments was presented in detail to
the Committee on Commerce, and the
group of Senators who have sponsored
the amendments have had numerous
conferences with the distinguished and
able, and I may say very amicable. Sen¬
ator from Louisiana [Mr. Overton] who
is in charge of the pending bill.
The problem which was presented to
us, Mr. President, was that of bringing
about the coordination in a legislative as
well as in an engineering way, so far as
this bill is concerned, of the two plans
that had been worked out for the Mis¬
souri Valley by the engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation, and of obtain¬
ing a redeclaration of the historic doc¬
trine of priority of the consumptive uses
of water in the States west of the ninety-
eighth meridian known as the arid-land
States, and finally of securing recogni¬
tion in the law of the interest and right
of States that are affected by flood con¬
trol or rivers and harbors improvement
to have an opportunity to examine the
plans and to suggest amendments, if
necessary, before any such plans are
adopted.
The subject matter has been discussed
off and on upon the floor upon numerous
occasions, and I think it is pretty well
understood by all Members of the Sen¬
ate, so I shall attempt now merely to ex¬
plain briefly the purpose of the various
amendments.
In the first place, Mr. President, there
is a provision, referring to the works of
improvement for navigation or flood con¬
trol which are authorized in this bill, set¬
ting forth a policy by which all plans,
proposals, or reports of the Chief of En¬
gineers, War Department, which have
not heretofore been authorized or are not
herein authorized, shall be submitted to
the Congress, after preliminary examina-
No. 164 - 3
8808 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 28
tion has been made by the affected States
through the governors of the States. In
other words, this language directs that
notice shall be given to the governors of
all affected States by the Chief of En¬
gineers.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. Has the amendment
In its latest form been printed?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; it has not been
printed. There has been an addition and
a change which I was undertaking to
describe.
Briefly paragraph (a) of the original
amendment therefore was intended to
apply to all future projects, and to pro¬
vide a policy by which such projects
should be cooperatively investigated and
planned by all of the States and by the
departments, the Interior Department
and the Army engineers, which might be
interested. As originally proposed to the
Commerce Committee, the amendment
contained provision for substantially
this same policy with respect to existing
projects, that is to say projects which
have already been authorized, but ro
which some objection has been found by
the public authorities of affected States.
The only object of that amendment
was to deal with projects contained in
this bill or previously authorized to
which some objection had been made. It
has been found that all the projects in
that category, with the exception of the
Connecticut River Basin, have been re¬
moved from the element of discussion,
because the Senators concerned have
asked or will ask that they be eliminated
from the bill. So that provision no
longer appears in this joint amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me again?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. If the Senator will
bear with me, I shall cover the entire
matter, but of course I shall be very glad
to have the Senator interrupt me.
Mr. MALONEY. I was going to sug¬
gest to the Senator that, in order that
we may mark our copies, I will be grate¬
ful if as he goes along he will point out
.the language he is striking out, and I
shall not interrupt him again.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I shall be very
happy to have the Senator interrupt me.
The provision in the printed amendment
which does not appear in the amend¬
ment which is now being offered, is that
which is described in the printed amend¬
ment as subparagraph (b). It appears
beginning in line 21 on page 4, and all
of page 5, and on page 6 down to and
including line 21. Paragraph (b) has
been eliminated altogether.
Paragraph (c) as originally prepared
therefore becomes paragraph (b) of the
amendment we are now offering, and
this is the provision which recognizes the
priority of the use of water in the States
west of the 98th meridian.
The next provision deals with the
plans which may be developed not by
the Army engineers but by the Secre¬
tary of the Interior in the future, and
paragraph (d) — now paragraph (c) —
has the effect of submitting the projects
devised by the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Secretary of the Interior to pre¬
cisely the same policy as that to which
plans and proposals of the Army engi¬
neers are subjected in accordance with
paragraph (a) of the amendment.
The bill as reported by the committee
contains, on page 5, in lines 8 to 16, a
provision authorizing the Secretary of
War to sell to States, municipalities, pri¬
vate concerns, and so forth, sui’pdus
water. Objection was made to that upon
the ground that in the public- land
States, according to the constitutions of
the States, the acts of admission, the
statutes of the States, and the policies of
the Congress, as indicated in several laws
which Congress has passed, such water
does not belong to any individual or any
agency, but is the property of the public.
In the Western States water is such an
important resource in the development
of the whole economy that from the very
beginning, as these States were admitted
to the Union, it was provided that the
ownership of the water should be in the
public, and should be administered by the
State so that water rights could be ad¬
judicated between conflicting claimants.
The amendment contains a modifica¬
tion of the language on page 5, lines 8
to 16. We move that that language be
stricken out, and a substitute is provided.
On page 5 of the bill, as reported, be¬
ginning in line 25, the committee struck
out section 6 altogether, and suggested a
committee amendment. The language
stricken appeals in line 25 on page 5 and
lines 1 to 11 on page 6. We are also offer¬
ing a substitute for that, j
A new section, section 9 (a), is offered.
It appears on pages 10 and 11 of the
printed amendment and authorizes the
integrated report on the Missouri Valley
Basin, the report to which the President’s
message referred. Of course, the pro¬
vision reported by the committee on
page 20, lines 5 to 25, inclusive, and on
page 21, lines 1 and 2, is stricken out, and
the authorization for the coordinated
plan is substituted for it.
Finally, Mr. President, there is the
amendment which is offered to take care
of the Connecticut River Valley. Sen¬
ators will recall that there is a very im¬
portant flood-control problem in the
Connecticut River Valley. It affects the
States of Connecticut and Massachusetts
particularly because they are lower-basin
States. It affects the State of Vermont
very acutely because the State of Ver¬
mont is the State in which certain dams
and projects to control the floods of the
Connecticut River were proposed to be
constructed. In other words, the State
of Vermont is the State which would be
required to surrender the use of arable
land in order to create a reservoir to
benefit States lower on the stream. The
problem has been under consideration
for a number of years. There is a New
England pact, but the plans which were
developed by the Army engineers were
not satisfactory to the public authori¬
ties of the State of Vermont, and the
Senators from Vermont have indicated
their objection to those plans.
Subsection (b) as originally proposed
would have provided for a review of those
plans. The proposed amendment, upon
which, as I understand, there has been
complete agreement, reads as follows;
On page 10 of the bill -
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lucas
in the chair). Does the Senator from
Wyoming yield to the Senator from
Louisiana?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. So far as the com¬
mittee is concerned, there has been- no
complete agreement with respect to the
amendment to which the Senator is
presently referring.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I understood that
it was satisfactory to the Senator from
Louisiana.
Mr. OVERTON. It is not satisfactory
to me. It would be a matter for debate.
I will say that the other amendments
which the Senator has read up to this
point are satisfactory; and while I do
not altogether agree with the exact
interpretation which the Senator has
placed upon them, as to their effect,
they are all satisfactory, so far as I am
concerned. The other amendment, re¬
lating to the Connecticut Valley Author¬
ity, is not agreed to.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. 'Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Since we
are talking about what has been agreed
to and what has not been agreed to, if
I may interrupt at this time — and I do
not wish to interrupt the thread of the
Senator’s thought — I should like to ask
what is the present tenor of the Sena¬
tor’s amendment, which I have not yet
had an opportunity to put together, with
regard to the Souris basin. I refer to
the project for taking water out of the
Missouri Valley watershed completely
and irrigating 1,000,000 acres of land in
Canada. If that is in the amendment I
intend to oppose it.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I will say to the
Senator that there is no provision in the
coordinated report of the Army Engi¬
neers and of the Bureau of Reclamation
for the irrigation of any land in Canada.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am not
asking the Senator that. I am asking
whether it is proposed to divert water
from the Missouri Valley watershed into
the watershed of the Red River of the
North. If that be true, I think it is an
Infamous proposal, which I shall person¬
ally oppose as long as I can.
Mr. O’MAHONEY, The coordinated
report of the Army engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation does provide for
the diversion of a certain amount of
water from the upper Missouri Valley
for the irrigation of lands in North Da¬
kota. The provisions of the engineering
plans are such that a drainage canal is
to be constructed for the pm-pose of re¬
covering the recoverable supply of water
after such irrigation. Some of it would
go into the Cheyenne River and into the
Red River of the North, as mentioned
by the Senator from Missouri; but I am
given to understand by the engineers
that all of it, or practically all of it, will
be used for domestic purposes in the
United States, in the State of North
Dakota, and that there is no possibility
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
of the utilization of any of this water
for the irrigation of lands in Canada.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. WHERRY. Would that water,
after it had been used for domestic pur¬
poses or any other purpose, drain back
into the original watershed?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Some of it would
go back into the Missouri. Some of it
would go into the Red River and would
not go back into the Missouri.
Mr. President, I was about to read the
amendment dealing with the Connecticut
River Basin. On page 10 of the bill as
reported by the committee, it is proposed
to strike out lines 3 to 7, inclusive, and
insert the following;
Nothing In this act or In any previous au¬
thorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a re¬
tention type dam, not to exceed elevation
415 Sandy Hook datum on the main stream
of the West River In the towns of Dummer-
ston or Newfane In the State of Vermont.
Plans, proposals, or reports heretofore au¬
thorized for construction at Cambrldgeport,
Ludlow, South Tumbrldge, and Gaysvllle, In
the Connecticut River Basin, or any modifica¬
tion of the comprehensive plan for the Con¬
necticut River Basin In Vermont heretofore
made under authority of the Flood Control
Act of June 28, 1938, or heretofore made under
authority of section 3 of the Flood Control
Act approved August 18, 1941, shall not be
carried out until after compliance with the
provisions of paragraph (a) of section —
of this act.
With that amendment, Mr. President,
the section would read as follows, be¬
ginning on page 9 of the bill, in line 22:
In addition to previous authorizations,
there Is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $30,000,000 for the prosecution of
the comprehensive plan approved In the, act
of June 28, 1938, as modified by the act ap¬
proved August 18, 1941, for the Connecticut
River Basin.
The provision I just read would then
follow in lieu of the proviso of the com¬
mittee amendment.
Mr. WEEKS and Mr. DAVIS addressed
the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Wyoming yield; and if so,
to whom?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield first to the
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. Pi’esident, let me
inquire whether the Senator is offering
this amendment to the amendment he
has proposed or to the bill itself at the
point at which reference is made to the
Connecticut River Basin?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Of course, Mr.
President, all of these, being amend¬
ments, are amendments offered to the
bill itself. From what the Senator from
Louisiana said a moment ago, I suppose
we may proceed with consideration of
these various items. It will be seen that
they deal with separate and distinct
parts of the bill.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, let me
ask a question, if I may do so. It is very
important to me, and, I think, to some
other Senators, to determine whether we
will be voting upon this new proposal as
a separate amendment or whether it may
become necessary in order to get at it to
propose the entire O’Mahoney amend¬
ment.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, for
the convenience of the Senate and of
those who were working on these bills,
this was printed as a whole. When we
begin we jump from page 5 to page 6 and
then to page 20; and I suggest that in
the interest of orderly procedure it might
be well for us to take them up as they
appear.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to sug¬
gest to the Senator that there is a slight
risk, at' least, of doing violence to his
proposal by including it in the amend¬
ment covering projects for the State of
Vermont.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Certainly.
Mr. OVERTON. I wish to assure the
Senator from Connecticut that there will
be a separate vote on the Connecticut
River Basin projects. My suggestion will
be that section 1 of the O’Mahoney
amendment, which has no relation what¬
soever to the Connecticut River Basin,
be voted on — down to, let us say, sub¬
section (a) — and that then we vote on
subsection (a), and then on subsection
(b), and then on subsection (^c).
Mr. MALONEY. Just a moment, Mr.
President. As I understand, subsection
(b) in the printed form is to be stricken
out.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. The Senator was
referring to the new subsection (b).
What was subsection (c) has now be¬
come subsection (b).
Mr. MALONEY. I understand.
Mr. OVERTON. And then the other
amendments follow. When we get
through with what the Senator has in
his hand in the printed form the Con¬
necticut River Basin projects will then
come up to be voted upon.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator from Wyoming
yield to me, to permit me to ask a ques¬
tion?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Certainly.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Will there
be a separate vote on the Souris River
project?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I have no objec¬
tion to having a separate vote on any
particular items which may appear in
the bill.
Mx. CLARK of Missouri. The Senator
has been reading from a private copy of
his own. If the Senator can advise me
where in the amendment the Souris River
project appears, I should be very much
obliged, because it is my intention to
vote against the Souris River project
and, if it is included in the bill, to vote
against the bill.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I shall be veiy
glad to point that out to the Senator.
If one of the pages will hand a printed
copy to the Senator from Missouri, he
will find the authorization on page 10
of the printed report, beginning in line
7, and going through line 19 on page 11.
That is the language which authorizes
the integrated report.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, if I
may be permitted to make a suggestion
to the Senator from Missouri, let me say
8609
that the Souris River question can easily
be disposed of in a separate amendment
which I presume the Senator from Mis¬
souri has in contemplation, and that
would be to make another subsection,
when we finish the O’Mahoney subsec¬
tion.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I do not wish
to interfere with the consideration of this
very important matter, of course.
Mr. OVERTON. That subsection'
would be as follows, in effect: “Nothing
herein shall be construed as authorizing
a divergence of water from the Missouri
River Basin to any other basin.”
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That is
exactly what I had in mind.
In other words, Mr. President, if the
Senator from Wyoming will permit me to
speak for just a moment, the whole con¬
troversy, which started with the con¬
sideration of the wrong bill, in my
opinion, commenced with the considera¬
tion of a river and harbor bill. It has
had to do with priority of water in the
Missouri Valley Basin. Senators from
the irrigation States have contended
that they were entitled to priority, and
Senators from some other States have
contended that they were entitled to
some water for navigation.
Into an integrated plan which adjusts
the differences between the irrigation
States and the navigation States, If I
may use those terms, there is now in¬
jected the proposition of diverting water
from one watershed to another. I do
not think that should be included In any
sort of an agreement.
I am perfectly willing to agree with
the irrigation States. I am anxious to
compromise their differences. But I say
when it comes to navigation, while under
this agreement we are yielding to the
irrigation States rights which we thought
we had, I am not willing to yield them to
different watersheds.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
appreciate the attitude of the Senator
from Missouri, and I say to him that he
can handle that matter by offering an
amendment to section 9 (a).
Mr. AUSTIN rose.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Vermont.
Mr. AUSTIN, Mr. President, as one
of the authors of the amendment about
which the Senator from Wyoming has
been talking, it is my understanding
that the paragraph read, relating to
page 10 of the bill, is a substitute for
paragraph (b) in the amendment which
Is on the same subject. If it is not, that
will make a great difference in my atti¬
tude toward the whole amendment.
Senators will notice on page 5 that
the Connecticut River Basin is one of
the subjects of consideration in para¬
graph (b), and that the paragraph be¬
ginning with line 3 and ending with line
7 relates to modifications of authoriza¬
tions made years before. These are the
subject of the separate amendment
which has been read by the Senator from
Wyoming.
If it is appropriate for a coauthor of
an amendment such as this one, which
undertakes to cover territory on both
sides of the meridian, to do so, I would
8610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 28
insist upon having this paragraph come
in as a substitute for the first paragraph
(b) in the amendment. I very strongly
desire to have it come in that order of
consideration.
I know that the rights of the Senator
apply, and I am not running counter to
them. But I should like to have this
subject considered in its order in the
amendment, and not have it put off until
after all the rest of the controversy which
is being discussed is settled. This is a
part of the whole policy, and it should
take its place as one in the amendment.
I do not like to have special discrimina¬
tion made with respect to this part of
the amendment. I earnestly request the
Senator from Wyoming to keep this sub¬
ject in the same order in which it appears
in this joint amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, as one
of the Senators hostile to the proposal
of the Senator from Vermont, I urge the
Senator from Wyoming to accept the
suggestion.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the
situation can easily be described, I think.
The Senator from Vermont perhaps did
not overhear the conversation between
the Senator from Louisiana and myself.
When I undertook a few moments ago
to explain the various amendments, I
stated that it was my understanding
that there had been substantial agree¬
ment between us and the distinguished
senior Senator from Louisiana. He im¬
mediately took the floor and said that
he had not agreed to the provision with
resi>ect to the Connecticut River Basin.
While he did not agree with some of the
things which I had said with respect
to other sections of the amendment, he
wanted a separate vote upon that par¬
ticular matter.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. In order to clear the
situation somewhat, will the Senator
from Wyoming tell us what the Senator
from Louisiana did agree to? I under¬
stood earlier in the day that he had
agreed to an amendment which would
take care of the Connecticut River situ¬
ation.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. That was my un¬
derstanding.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator now says
that no such agreement was made. I
should like to know to what the Senator
from Louisiana did agree, and in whose
behalf the agreement was made.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the
Senator from Louisiana may speak for
himself.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Do I
correctly understand that the amend¬
ment known as the O’Mahoney amend¬
ment deals with a new policy affecting
flood control in the future?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes; to the extent
that it would grant an opportunity to
affected States to participate in the plan¬
ning of projects before being submitted.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. But
the amendment is not intended to apply
to provisions in the pending bill, or to
an authorization heretofore made for
flood control.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. The original pro¬
posal contained two paragraphs, one of
which dealt with projects to be planned
in the future, and the other with proj¬
ects already planned and authorized, but
with reference to which there was some
objection upon the part of affected
States. With the exception of the con¬
troversy affecting the Connecticut River
Valley, all the controversies have ap¬
parently been settled.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Is it
not a fact that the proposed amendment
is in the nature of a repeal of an au¬
thorization already made?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. So far as the Con¬
necticut River basin is concerned, the
amendment is in effect a provision for a
review of the projects.
Mr-. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
Senator is correct. In other words, the
amendment would prevent the appro¬
priation requested in the pending bill be¬
ing made to carry out an authorization
already determined upon and settled by
the Congress.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes; until re¬
viewed on behalf of the State of Ver¬
mont.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Yes.
Are there in the pending bill any proj¬
ects, other than the one referred to, as
to which a review would be permitted
by the States affected?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. The others have
all been taken up.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. So we
are now dealing with what I choose to
call a new policy, or a new right of
States which they have not before had,
and at the same time we are seeking to
annul action heretofore taken in the case
of flood control in the Connecticut River
Valley?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Will the Senator
pardon me? I did not clearly under¬
stand the last part of his statement.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. While
we are proposing to give an additional
right to- the States to review flood-con¬
trol projects affecting the area of the
States involved, the amendment which
the Senator last read, and which relates
to the Connecticut River Valley, seeks in
fact to provide a review of the only pro¬
posal in the bill which Is based on a pre¬
vious authorization.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; the Senator is
not entirely correct. The amendment
deals with certain specified sites in the
State of Vermont. It should be pointed
out that the authorization, if granted,
would affect at least 33 different sites.
At least, that is what I have been told. I
believe that this amendment deals with
only 5 of them.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. As in¬
dicated by the Senator’s amendment, if
the bill, as reported by the committee,
were enacted, the flood-control projects
in the Connecticut River Valley would
proceed without any review of them be¬
ing made by the States, Is that state¬
ment not correct?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. If the amendment
should be agreed to -
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. It Is
proposed to prevent the procedure to
which I have referred, to nullify the re¬
port of the committee, and to subject
this one project in the Connecticut River
Valley to the review provided for in the
general amendment.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. The Senator’s
statement is too broad, because the
amendment deals only with certain
dams.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. But
they are a part of a larger authorization,
and an included authorization which has
already been granted by the Congress.
Am I not correct?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. In
other words, the amendment would nul¬
lify a part of a previous authorization by
permitting a review with reference to
one or two dams?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Precisely. The
amendment provides a modification, but
it does not defeat flood control in the
Connecticut River Basin because the lan¬
guage provides specifically for the con¬
struction of a retention type of dam not
to exceed an elevation of 415 feet, Sandy
Hook datum.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHQNEY. I am very glad to
yield.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to point
out to the Senator from Massachusetts
that this language would in effect repeal
existing law. It would do more than
provide for a review. It would provide
that if the Governor of the State of Ver¬
mont, for example, did not like the situ¬
ation after a review had been made, we
would not be able to obtain the flood
control until Congress had again acted
upon the matter. So the language
would amount to a repeal of the law;
that is the language as I last saw it.
Mr, AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHOIMEY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I may
say that the purpose of the amendment
is to give to the people of Vermont, whose
property is to be taken for the benefit
of the States bordering on the Connecti¬
cut River, an opportunity to be heard In
the matter of whether their property
should be taken from them, removed
from taxation, and destroyed. The rea¬
son for the amendment is that the peo¬
ple of Vermont have had no opportunity
to be heard. No hearings have been
held in connection with the entire situa¬
tion in Vermont so that the people of
that State could be heard. There is one
exception to that statement. I believe
that one hearing was held in Bellows
Palls in 1939. The people of the com¬
munities affected do not know whether
they are to be flooded out by dams to be
constructed for one purpose or another.
The purpose of the amendment is to give
them an opportunity to be heard and to
present their side of the case. They
should be given an opportunity to show
alternate sites which might be made
available for flood control purposes, and
to show why their property should not
be destroyed. We have not had an op-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8611
portunity to be heard up to the present
time.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, do I
have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
Mr. MALONEY. I wish to ask ques¬
tions, and since the distinguished chair¬
man of the subcommittee is on his feet
I shall first ask him whether the people
of Vermont have had a chance to be
heard.
Mr. OVERTON. The people of Ver¬
mont have had an opportunity to be
heard.
Mr. MALONEY. Were they heard?
Mr. OVERTON. They were heard
before the subcommittee of which I was
chairman.
Mr. MALONEY. It seems to me, Mr.
President, that the people of Vermont
have not only had an opportunity to be
heard, but have been heard on more
than one occasion. I wish that my State
might always have the representation
which Vermont, through its two able
Senators, has, had in connection with
this problem.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I am very glad to
yield.
Mr. OVERTON. I should like to ask
the Senator from Wyoming in what
order he is presenting hfb amendments.
I will preface that statement by saying
that whatever he has read, or proposes
to read, is agreeable to me as contained
in the printed amendment as modified.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Will the Senator
permit an interruption?
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I
have the floor, and I should like to hear
the conversation.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President,
what I am proposing to do is to safe¬
guard the opportunity of every Member
of the Senate to have his say and to have
his voice heard. I would not come to
the floor of the Senate with any pro¬
posal which would, deny a Senator such
an opportunity. If Senators will be
good enough to allow me to proceed, I
think they will find that the safeguard
which I am proposing will be afforded.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I am
quite willing that the Senator should
proceed now and I will yield the floor to
him; but before doing so I should like to
caution him that, in my judgment, he
jeopardizes his own proposal, because
this Vermont idea is an entirely new
procedure, and, if the proposal prevailed,
it would destroy existing law, and in my
judgment, if we had another flood it
would keep open the flood gates in north¬
ern New England and probably create, as
it has in the past on more than one oc¬
casion, very great damage and loss of
life in the States south of Vermont.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President,
ample opportunity will be afforded to
develop that point.
Now let me offer the amendment as
now phrased. Mr. President, I offer on
behalf of the sponsors an amendment
reading as follows:
In. connection with the exercise of juris¬
diction over the rivers of the Nation through
the construction of works of improvement,
for navigation or flood control, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the Congress to
recognize the interests and rights of the
States in determining the development of
the watersheds within their borders and like¬
wise their interests and rights in water
utilization and control, as herein authorized
to preserve and protect to the fullest possible
extent established and potential uses, for
all purposes, of the waters of the Nation’s
rivers; to facilitate the consideration of proj¬
ects on a basis of comprehensive and co¬
ordinated development; and to limit the au¬
thorization and construction of navigation
works to those in which a substantial bene¬
fit to navigation will be realized therefrom
and which can be operated consistently with
appropriate and economic use of the waters
of such rivers by other users.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of
that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Wyo¬
ming [Mr. O’Mahoney].
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, this is
merely a declaration of policy. It does
not affect the Connecticut River Valley
and It does not affect the diversion of
water in the Missouri River Basin, which
are the only two matters now in contro¬
versy.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I should like to observe that last
week we debated here for a whole day the
first paragraph of the bill as reported
from the committee, at which time the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky,
the majority leader [Mr. Barkley], and
the distinguished junior Senator from
Montana [Mr. Murray] insisted that
that was an effort on the part of this
Congress to bind future Congresses, and
at which time the Senator from Louisi¬
ana and myself insisted that one Con¬
gress could not bind the next Congress,
and indeed one Congress could not bind
itself for a week in the future. I simply
desire to observe that I have no objection
to the declaration of policy proposed by
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming
on behalf of himself and a number of his
colleagues, but it makes more or less ri¬
diculous the contention of the distin¬
guished Senator from Kentucky that the
declaration of policy reported by the
committee was an attempt to bind future
Congresses.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the
Senator from Missouri perhaps did not
hear my reading of the words “as herein
authorized.” Of course, it is quite true
that no Congress can bind a future Con¬
gress.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator has
made a motion that the Senate adopt
certain language on pages 1 and 2, and I
am assuming that he is going to make
separate motions as to various other
proposals. Before permitting the Sen¬
ate to act on this particular one, I
should like to ask the Senator one or
two questions. Will the Senator tell us
whether or not in his judgment this lan¬
guage would change existing law?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; I will say it Is
a declaration of policy.
Mr. MALONEY. Then, I want to ask
the Senator this question, if I may:
Does he think that this would give the
States any additional power or authority
or Influence than they have under ex¬
isting law?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. It is a declaration
of policy to recognize the rights of the
States -
Mr. MALONEY. I understand that.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. And it is pre¬
liminary to paragraph (a) which I shall
offer in just a moment, and which does
write into law a policy with respect to
cooperation in the drafting of plans,
which the States do not now have. To
that extent it is in addition to existing
law.
Mr. MALONEY. So it would Change
existing law, in the opinion of the Sena¬
tor?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. That is correct.
Mr. MALONEY. I want to call that
statement to the attention of Members
of the Senate, because, if I understand
the view of the Senator from Wyoming,
and his attempt in this instance, this
language coupled with language which is
to follow, if he is coi'rect, would give the
governors of certain States a veto power
over flood control.
Mr. President, I have on many
occasions stood on the floor of the Sen¬
ate, oftentimes following the leadership
and joining in the effort of the Senator
from Wyoming, to protect the rights of
the States. I am just as anxious — as
anxious, I think, as anyone else could
be — to keep the States free, and their
rights from final extinction, but I have
long since concluded, that we cannot
have States’ rights to the degree which
is desired by the Senator from Wyoming
and at the same time have flood control.
I happen to live in a maritime State.
What chance have we to protect our¬
selves against the ravages of floods if
a State in northern New England can
veto flood-control projects which must
be constructed in that tier of States in
order to protect our farm lands and our
cities and the lives of our people? Such
a condition could exist throughout the
whole country if the original purpose of
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming
prevailed. I know that he is acting
in all sincerity: I know that there is no
more conscientious Member of the Sen¬
ate than he, but I am fearful that in
reaching out to help in the accomplish¬
ment of the aims of the distinguished
Senator from Vermont he might imperil
the seacoast and other States throughout
this country, the States which need flood
control. I am very hopeful, because he
has so readily and sincerely admitted
the purpose of this amendment that it
will be defeated.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Wyoming yield to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Wyoming yield to the
Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. I should like to as¬
sure the Senator from Connecticut and
the Senate that there is no provision
in the O’Mahoney amendment as
presently offered, and as will hereafter
be presented, that vests any veto power
in the Governor of any State. There
is no veto provision in it whatsoever.
That has been eliminated entirely.
8612
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 28
Mr. MALONEY. I understand; but
the Senator from Wyoming just stated,
in answer to my question, that this would
change the law, if adopted in connection
with additional and following language
to be inserted in the proposed amend¬
ment.
Mr. OVERTON. It does not vest any
power of veto in the Governor of any
State whatsoever, and when Congress
shall have acted upon it it will be final,
unless Congress itself should hereafter
in its own discretion repeal the law.
Mr. MALONEY. I disagree with the
distinguished chairman of the subcom¬
mittee, who has worked so hard for this
legislation over the years, and for whom
I have so much admiration, but I would
rather have the word, in this instance, of
the Senator from Wyoming as to what
the amendment would do, and he has al¬
ready admitted that it would make a fun¬
damental change in existing policy.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. Pi'esident, I
did not intend to burden the Senate to¬
day with any extended discussion of this
amendment, but the statement which has
just been made by the Senator from Con¬
necticut impels me to state to the Senate
my belief that we are dealing here with
one of the most fundamental of all ques¬
tions which are arising in the United
States today. If we believe in the pres¬
ervation of the rights of individuals to
have an opportunity to say what shall be
done with their property, with their eco¬
nomic existence, with their very lives,
we must find the way to coordinate in¬
dividual and local rights with these vast
projects which are now possible because
of the tremendous advance of engineer¬
ing. I feel very deeply that what we are
doing here today coincides with the fun¬
damental philosophy of the Senator from
Connecticut. I feel that the Senator is
fearful of conditions which are not likely
to arise at all.
Let me call the attention of the Sena¬
tor and the Senate to the fact that there
has been a controversy affecting the
whole Missouri Valley, involving the
Army engineers upon the one hand and
the Bureau of Reclamation upon the
other. Each one at the outset was fear¬
ful that the other was seeking to gain
control over activities within the scope
of the other.
The Army engineers had a plan for
the development of the Missouri Basin.
It dealt primarily with navigation and
flood control, with incidental power.
The Bureau of Reclamation had a plan
for the Missouri Valley which dealt pri¬
marily with irrigation and reclamation.
I felt from the very outset that it would
be possible for these two agencies and
their engineers to sit down together and
to draw a plan by which the waters of
that valley could be used to conserve the
interests of everybody living in the val¬
ley; that it could be developed so as to
protect irrigation and reclamation, so as
to provide for the development of public
power, so as to provide for all feasible
and possible and desirable navigation,
and so as to provide complete flood con¬
trol. Finally, Mr. President, at the urg¬
ing of the President of the United States
and at the urging of Members of this
body who have been cooperating in this
amendment, the engineers did get to¬
gether, and they did agree upon a plan.
I say to the Senator from Connecticut
that, in my judgment, the people of Con¬
necticut and the people of Massachusetts
will find no difficulty whatsoever in
working out with the people and the
public ofBcials of the State of Vermont
a completely feasible plan which wiU
protect flood control in Connecticut and
Massachusetts.
Mr. MALONEY. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Certainly.
Mr. MALONEY. Let me say, first, that
three times we have had fatal floods in
Connecticut, and when the Senator from
Wyoming suggests that we need not an¬
ticipate trouble, I should like to know
what creates that feeling in his mind,
when we have already on more than one
occasion suffered millions upon millions
of dollars of property loss and loss of
life.
I should like to say further to the Sen¬
ator from Wyoming, who says that the
people should be heard on these impor¬
tant issues, that they are being heard
through their Congress; and, so far as
the Senate is concerned, the people of
Connecticut must be heard through my
distinguished colleague the junior Sen¬
ator from Connecticut [Mr. Danaher]
and myself.
I should like to have the matter han¬
dled the way the Senator from Wyoming
would do it. The New England Gov¬
ernors had a plan. They tried to create
a flood-control compact which would
have kept unto themselves the various
phases of this program mentioned by the
Senator from Wyoming. That, too, was
encom-aged by the President of the
United States, and we went to work and
formed a plan; it was a good plan, it
came here, and the Senate accepted it.
But it went to another body, and it has
not been possible to get it out. So, as a
representative of the State of Connecti¬
cut charged with the responsibility, in
this instance, of affording proper protec¬
tion of the people of my State, I take the
only avenue open.
As I have said, I should like to see the
matter handled in these other ways,
which would afford a preservation and
protection of States’ rights, but the Con¬
gress of the United States has said no.
It has laid down a program, it has estab¬
lished a policy, and because this is the
only avenue I have, I am going to resist
the proposal of the distinguished Sena¬
tors from Vermont, as they make it
through the amendment of the Senator
from Wyoming.
I should like to cooperate with Ver¬
mont, I should like to see the matter
worked out as they would have it. I
should like to believe, and I think I do
believe, that they could with the Army
engineers come to an understanding,
that the matter could be rearranged; but
it is going to be too late, insofar as my
State is concerned, if they erase the exist¬
ing law, if they deny us the right or deny
the Federal Government the right to
build these already authorized projects
on the streams of Vermont; and that Is
what this proposal would do.
I can understand the position of those
people in Vermont, the comparatively
few people who would be affected by the
dam which has caused such great con¬
sternation. I can quite understand it.
Under the existing situation Vermont
gets very little, if any, benefit, and I
think we should go as far as we can to
afford them some benefit for the sacri¬
fices, if there are sacrifices, they are
called upon to make. But, Mr. President,
if this Vermont amendment prevails, we
go back to the last writing of a law on
this subject, we take it all out, we de¬
stroy any chance for early flood-control
work in the Connecticut River Basin,
and in my judgment it would be a great
mistake, a very great mistake, for the
Senate to adopt the proposal.
I should like to see a compromise. I
think probably that with the Army en¬
gineers, who have latitude, who have a
right to make modifications, the people
of Vermont might work the matter out,
but I hope the Senate will not wipe it
out by the adoption of the proposed lan¬
guage.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, there
is nothing in the provision which is now
before the Senate which in any way mod¬
ifies the Connecticut River Basin project.
It is merely a declaration of policy, and
it is a declaration of policy which has
been pursued from time immemorial by
the Army engineers. It merely declares:
It Is hereby declared to be the policy of
Congress to recognize the interests and rights
of the States in determining the develop¬
ment of the watersheds within their borders
and likewise their Interests and rights in
water utilization and control, as herein au¬
thorized to preserve and protect to the fullest
possible extent established and potential
uses, for all purposes, of the waters of the
Nation’s rivers; to facilitate the considera¬
tion of projects on a basis of comprehensive
and coordinated development.
And so forth.
Mr. President, that has always been
the policy of the Army engineers, and
there is not a Senator on this floor who
can point to any project which has ever
been recommended by the Army engi¬
neers or authorized by the Congress
which militates against the policy here¬
in proposed.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator from Louisiana
3d eld?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Of course,
the Senator from Louisiana realizes that,
in its first modified form as offered in
the Committee on Commerce by the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
Robertson], the O’Mahoney amend¬
ment — I call it the O’Mahoney amend¬
ment, although I understand it was spon¬
sored by a very large number of Sena¬
tors — did actually contain authority for
the Governors of the States at the head¬
waters of one of these great rivers to pro¬
hibit any improvement of any sort at the
other end of the river. In other words,
in the judgment of the Senator from
Louisiana, and in the judgment of my¬
self, it would have permitted the Gov¬
ernor of Montana or the Governor of
Wyoming absolutely to prohibit, on his
own ipse dixit, an improvement of the
jetties at the mouth of the Mississippi
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8613
River, and both the Senator from Loui¬
siana and I very violently opposed that.
Mr. OVERTON. And it was elimi¬
nated.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It was de¬
cisively defeated in the committee, and
I would not vote for the amendment if
that had not been eliminated.
Mr. OVERTON. It has been wholly
eliminated.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. It seems to
me the objection raised by the Senator
from Connecticut has been met by the
correction which has been made. It is
a criticism which applies vei'y justly to
the first and second versions of the
OMahoney amendment, but does not
apply to the present version.
Mr. OVERTON. It has been com¬
pletely obliterated, and there exists no
right of veto in any Governor.
The next provision submitted by the
Senator from Wyoming in subsection (a)
also provides for everything that has
heretofore been done by the Army engi¬
neers, with one exception, and that is, it
provides that objections made by the
Governor of a State' shall be submitted
in writing to the Chief of Engineers, and
those objections shall be incorporated in
any report he submits to the Congress.
That is the only change. But the Army
engineers have always consulted local
interests. They have consulted State
agencies from the very inception of a
project on up to its final recommendation
by the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator was
present I think and heard the Senator
from Wyoming say that he felt that the
adoption of this language coupled with
the language later appearing in the
amendment would change the present
policy?
Mr. OVERTON. Would suggest a veto
power?
Mr. MALONEY. Would change the
present flood-control policy of the Gov¬
ernment. Did the Senator hear that
language?
Mr. OVERTON. No; I did not hear
that statement, but I will not question it.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator from
Wyoming, if I correctly understood him,
did say that.
Mr. OVERTON. Whether he did or
did not, it does not change the policy that
has been pursued by our Government and
by the Army engineers ever since I have
had anything at all to do with flood-con¬
trol legislation, and that has been about
12 or 13 years. They have always con¬
sulted local interests. They never have
deprived any State of water that it needs.
They have always looked after local uses
and they have always consulted local au¬
thorities before submitting any report.
This language simply puts in form what
they have always undertaken to do.
Therefore, there is no change of policy
and there is not the slightest suggestion
of a veto. That has been eliminated en¬
tirely from the O’Mahoney amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. I understand that. I
felt that was the case, and I so said
earlier, but in answer to my inquiry the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mah¬
oney], the sponsor and the author of
the amendment, disagreed. He said it
does change the policy.
Mr. OVERTON. Well, I do not know
In what connection it does change it.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Do I correctly under¬
stand the Senator from Louisiana to say
that the engineers consult the local au¬
thorities before putting dams into their
programs?
Mr. OVERTON. They have always
done so, so far as I know.
Mr. AIKEN. I wish to say that that
may have been true in the Senator’s
section of the country, but it certainly
has not been true in New England. When
the Senator from Connecticut stated that
the people had a chance to be heard at
a hearing, through their Senators, that
was perfectly correct, but when they do
not have a chance to be heard is when
dams are being planned for their com¬
munities, and when the first they know
about the matter is after the dams are
already written into the program. I
was Governor of Vermont 4 years, and
just once was I ever consulted about any
proposed dams. That was when a dam
was partly finished, and they wished to
modify the contract in some way, and
then I had to be consulted. But they
did not consult the local people.
I will make one exception. In 1939
they had one hearing at Bellows Falls
on the West River Dam when local peo¬
ple were permitted to appear. After
that hearing the site of the dam was
moved several miles and the local peo¬
ple were not notified about it, they knew
nothing about it until they saw the engi¬
neers working there taking their sound¬
ings in the rock about a year ago. I
must say that local authorities are not
notified or consulted in any way in my
section of the country.
Mr. OVERTON. Does the Senator ob¬
ject then to a provision that does require
them to consult the local authorities?
Mr. AIKEN. I think they ought to
be required to consult them before a dam
is written into the program.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well. That is
what this language provides.
Mr. AIKEN. I agree that the people
have a chance to be heard through their
Members of Congress after the dam is
already written into the program, but
not before.
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator knows
that they do have a chance to be heard
before the dam is constructed. The
Senator knows that if he notifies the
Army engineers that he wants a hearing
to be held on any proposed project in
any area, the hearing will be arranged.
Mr. AIICEN. But when no one knows
that the project is contemplated, how
can notice be served that a hearing is
desired to be held?
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator can
arrange tomorrow, in a blanket request,
to have hearings on every project in his
State, even though they are yet unborn,
simply by sending notice to the Army
engineers.
Mr. AIKEN. I am not saying what
can be done in the future. I am saying
what has been done in the past, and I
know that no one has taken a stand
more in favor of the local people having
a right to be heard than has the Senator
from Connecticut.
Mr. MALONEY. That is correct, and
they have been heard in my State.
Mr. AIKEN. I should like to quote
from a speech made on the Senate
floor -
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, be¬
fore the Senator does that, will he yield
to me?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator stated
that while he wa^ Governor of Vermont
he was never consulted with respect to
any project that was being built by the
Army engineers. Was there any project
of flood control built by the Government
while the Senator was Governor of Ver¬
mont except a project built by the C. C. C.
on the Winooski River?
Mr. AIKEN. Yes; one.
Mr. OVERTON. The Army engineers
had nothing to do with the project on the
Winooski River. There was no occasion
to consult with the Army engineers with
respect to that project.
Mr. AIKEN. The Army engineers did
plan to construct one dam while I was
Governor. The engineers never notified
me with respect to it. They never noti¬
fied any State officials about it until they
found they had to relocate the highway,
and then they notified the highway de¬
partment that they would have to move
the road. That was the first notification
we ever had.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Wyo¬
ming [Mr. O’Mahoney] inserting at the
proper place lines 1 to 4, on page 1, down
to and including line 13, on page 2, of the
printed amendment intended to be pro¬
posed- by him, setting forth a declaration
of policy.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I wish to make an observation
or two in reference to some features of
the discussion which has taken place here
today. The United States Government
can walk into any city in the country,
even in peacetime, and take one-quarter
or one-half of all its water front for the
building of a navy yard, and the local
authorities have nothing to say about it.
Even in time of peace, and not as a war
measure, the United States Government
repeatedly goes into communities and
takes large portions of those communities
for cantonments and for development of
Army and Navy stations. It does so both
in time of peace and in time of war. I
know that in some communities in my
State two-thirds of their areas have been
confiscated because of the military need
of defending our country. Very appro¬
priately has flood control been under the
control of the Army, because flood con¬
trol affects human life. The war against
flood is a war inside our own land. It is
a war against the destruction of property
and the destruction of human life.
The Government cannot take land for
a naval base without representatives of
the Government appearing before the
8614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Committee on Naval Affairs and having
a hearing on the matter. A flood-con¬
trol project cannot be initiated without
the Army engineers holding hearings on
the subject. Representatives of the
Army engineers come before the com¬
mittees of Congress, and hearings are
held in both the House and the Senate
respecting the wisdom and the propriety
and the necessity for taking the property
in question and damming streams in or¬
der to save human life and to promote
and protect navigation.
It seems to me that we ought to realize
that we are dealing with something per¬
haps even more vital than the prepara¬
tion for national defense, that is, prepa¬
ration for defense of life and property
here at home. We ought not to go to
extremes because of the fact that a given
commimity has been opposed to a par¬
ticular dam or is opposing the use of a
particular site, which opposition, if suc¬
cessful, would result in thwarting the
purpose for which the project is in¬
tended, that is, the control of floods and
the prevention of the awful damage re¬
sulting from floods.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask the
Senator from Massachusetts if it is not
a fact that the State of Massachusetts
and every other State by law gives its
consent to the acquisition of land by the
Federal Government for post offices,
docks, navy yards, and that representa¬
tives of the Government come to the
Senator’s committee to obtain authori¬
zation for the money needed for the proj¬
ect, not for authorization to take the
land, which has already been granted by
the State.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Under
the Constitution the Federal Govern¬
ment has the right to take the land from
the States for the purposes enumerated.
Mr. AIKEN. But each State has a
law — and 1 am sure the State of Massa¬
chusetts has one — providing that it may
grant its consent to the Federal Govern¬
ment to acquire land for the purposes
which the Senator has mentioned.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. For
defense purposes, that is true.
Mr. AIKEN. Some of the States have
in their laws the words “other needful
buildings,” which, according to the Su¬
preme Court interpretation, may mean
almost anything for which the Federal
Government may want the land.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I be¬
lieve attempts have been made to in¬
clude dams in the word “buildings.”
Mr. AIKEN. That is true.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
Senator suggested that no hearing was
held in Vermont, but he will recall that
when he was Governor he and I discussed
this same project in an effort to reconcile
the various groups in New England.
Mr. AIKEN. If at the time I had been
Governor matters had been left to the
Senator from Massachusetts and myself,
the question would have been settled sat¬
isfactorily a long time ago. The State
of Vermont would not have suffered any
serious damage, and the people of Mas¬
sachusetts would have had protection.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I ap¬
preciate the compliment.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, it seems
to me that some misapprehensions
should be cleared up. Some Senators
may have gained the impression that
this is a new subject, insofar as the
Connecticut River Valley is concerned.
After the flood of 1927, which was very
disastrous in Massachusetts and Con¬
necticut, the engineers began to study
methods of alleviating the suffering and
loss of life and property occasioned by
the floods which for years have been rav¬
aging that valley.
I should like to point out, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that in discussing the Connecticut
River Valley we are not discussing irri¬
gation or reclamation. We are not dis¬
cussing power. We are discussing noth¬
ing but flood control, as specified in the
terms of the bill reported by the com¬
mittee.
Commencing after the 1927 flood the
engineers studied 275 different sites for
dams to protect the lower valley of the
Connecticut River. They Anally settled
upon a project involving 20 dams and
dykes on the lower river. Those dams
would, if erected, take care of 25 percent
of the drainage area of the whole Con¬
necticut River Valley, and would take
about 6 feet off the peak of the flood in
the lower Connecticut Valley. At first
the States of New Hampshire, Vermont,
Connecticut, and Massachusetts at¬
tempted to make a compact, but in 1938,
by the act of that year, the United States
took over the administration of flood
control, and the procedure from that
point on was for the Federal Government
to take care of flood control in toto. So
the compact idea went overboard at that
time.
In 1938 this project was established and
agreed upon. The project involved 20
dams to take care of flood control in thg
Connecticut Valley. In effect, the project
was reaffirmed in 1941, in the act of that
year. So I may say, Mr. President, that
for the past 6 years and prior to that
time, in all the discussions among the
States involved, every one ^of the four
States which I have mentioned, namely,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont,
and New Hampshire, has been thoroughly
acquainted with the situation and the
necessity for doing something. Not only
were the State officials acquainted with
the problem, but also the people were
familiar with it. For 10 or 12 years past
we have all been fully acquainted with the
situation.
Twice, in the act of 1938 and the act of
1941, a policy was established; and now,
as I see it, with respect to the established
policy of the Federal Government looking
toward adequate flood control in the Con¬
necticut Valley, by this amendment the
clock would be turned backward, and in
effect we would have to start all over
again.
I wish to point out that in an 11 -year
period we had three disastrous floods, in¬
volving great loss of life, and a property
loss, direct and indirect, amounting to
nearly $150,000,000. In my judgment any
attempt at this time to turn the clock
back and to make the States of Massa¬
chusetts and Connecticut start all over
November 28
again on ^ood control will be very In¬
jurious to a situation which has been so
troublous and so disastrous to the people
of the lower Connecticut VaUey.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, let me
say just a word about the first paragraph
of the O’Mahoney amendment. It ought
to be ‘adopted, even though it should
change the law in reversal, because all it
lacks for is the doctrine of cooperation
between the Federal Government and the
States. If there is any gi’ound upon
which we can all unite with respect to the
general policy of government in the
United States, it is the ground of co¬
operation. Many times we in Congress
are vexed by the fact that two govern¬
ments exist upon every foot of land in
this country. Each State has two gov¬
ernments to obey, and two loyalties to
keep. Occasionally those governments
are found in conflict; and the conflict
comes before us in the Senate to be re¬
solved upon a specific issue. We are
troubled by it many times. We are
troubled to distinguish between that
which belongs to the Federal Government
and that which belongs to the State gov¬
ernment. Often we become divided, I
think without reason, for it is the purpose
of every Senator to serve the welfare of
the whole. That is the main objective.
The reason why we have insisted upon
preserving the Federal system, with
State autonomy well protected against
encroachment by an ever-growing Cen¬
tral Government, is that we have learned
by experience that that type of govern¬
ment has outlived any other type of gov¬
ernment in the world, and has been suc¬
cessful in preserving the common wel¬
fare. This is the oldest Government in
the world, in terms of having existed un¬
changed for the longest period of time.
Now we are entering upon a very im¬
portant period of our political history,
and both great parties, during the past
few years, at least, have declared the pur¬
pose not to change from the Federal sys¬
tem into an enormous national system
which attempts to cover the whole coun¬
try by a horizontal obligation.
When we undertake the control of
wa'ters, we are immediately confronted
by the question to which I have referred,
because every great river basin in the
United States is different from the
others. Among other questions which
arise is the question of rights. I do not
like to talk about right-; yet we may have
to do so before we are through with this
debate.
Of course, we must consider the ques¬
tion of the desires of the people, the will
of the people. We, with our enormous
power, should not override the will of the
people in any river basin. If such basins
have characteristics which are geolog¬
ical, or otherwise, which make their
problem peculiar, should we not give due
regard to the wishes of those people in
devising our plan for them? Oh, Mr.
President, I think that is a perfectly
reasonable thing.
All that section 1 does is to write into
law, to crystallize it in black and white,
that we are about to declare a policy of
cooperation between the Federal Gov¬
ernment and the State governments on
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
the subject of flood control. That is all
the paragraph does.
The discussion of the Connecticut
River Basin and its peculiar problems
has not been reached, for the paragraph
we are now considering relates to the
whole United States, and declares a great
principle. When it says, “To facilitate
the consideration of projects on a basis
of comprehensive and cooperative devel¬
opment,” it declares a great principle.
It is one upon which we can unite, and
we can avoid the appearance of always
being in a fight with the Federal Gov¬
ernment in order to have a chance to
present our view. It is a very uncom¬
fortable thing for me as a Senator to
appear in the Committee on Commerce
or in a subcommittee of it and to seem
to be in opposition to the views of the
Army engineers. I should be there co¬
operating as fully as possible, but I can¬
not do so when I have never before had
a chance to act, because they had not
crystallized a plan and submitted it.
Until then I cannot act effectively, and
your committee cannot do so. Your
committee cannot act because it has not
had before it the wishes or the views of
the people.
I now hold in my hand a design for
one of these river valleys comprehending
8 different sites, instead of one, and pro¬
tecting our friends and neighbors almost
as much as the single high dam would
protect them. I shall point that out in
detail later.
But as for the principle of cooperation,
it is wholesome, and we should unani¬
mously adopt the first paragraph.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. May-
bank in the chair). The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Sena¬
tor from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney] in¬
serting at the proper place the language
contained in the printed amendments on
page 1, down to and including line 12 on
page 2, setting out a declaration of pol¬
icy.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, I under¬
stand that we are about to vote on the
first paragraph of the so-called O’Mah¬
oney amendment. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote
about to be taken will be on that part of
the amendment setting forth a declara¬
tion of policy.
Mr. WEEKS. Down to line 13?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Down to
line 12.
The question is on agreeing to that
portion of the amendment. [Putting
the question.]
As it appears to the CHiair, the “ayes”
have it.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
now offer the amendment which appears
in the printed amendments, beginning
in line 13 on page 2, and including all of
page 3, and all of page 4 down to and
including line 20. It is what is known
as subparagraph (a).
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, there
is no objection to that amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I
should like to ask a question regarding
the amendment. As originally drawn,
the entire amendment made provision
that the interested parties outside the
Federal Government could hold up the
projects until the Federal Government
accepted their plan or the matter needed
to go back to Congress again. Is there
any provision in this language which
would enable any State to hold up a
project for further action by the Con¬
gress?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Oh, no.
Mr. MALONEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. We have been very
careful about that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, in
view of the fact that the senior Senator
from Vermont [Mr. Austin] a moment
ago pointed out that the Connecticut
River Basin provision is a substitute for
what was originally in the O’Mahoney
amendment, and in order that the mat¬
ter may be determined, I now offer the
following amendment:
On page 10 of the bill, strike out lines 3
to 7, Inclusive, and Insert:
“Nothing In this act or in any previous
authorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a
retention type dam, not to exceed elevation
415 Sandy Hook datum on the main stream
of the West River In the towns of Dummers-
ton or Newfane In the State of Vermont.
Plans, proposals, or reports heretofore au¬
thorized for construction at Cambrldgeport,
Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysvllle, In
the Connecticut River Basin, or any modifica¬
tion of the comprehensive plan for the Con¬
necticut River Basin in Vermont heretofore
made under authority of the Flood Control
Act of June 28, 1938, or heretofore made
under authority of section 3 of the Flood
Control Act approved August 18, 1941, shall
not be carried out until after compliance
with the provisions of paragraph (a) of
section — of this act.”
The paragraph (a) to which reference
is made in the amendment is the para¬
graph (a) which has just been adopted.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I am
misled by the words “Sandy Hook.” Is
the point from which the elevation is
measured Sandy Hook, N. Y.?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I shall ask the
Senator from Vermont to explain that.
Mr. AUSTIN. I understand it to be
the datum employed by the Army Engi¬
neers as the basis of stating the eleva¬
tion of dams for our neighborhood.
Mr. MALONEY. Is it 415 feet above
sea level at Sandy Hook?
Mr. AUSTIN. I do not know that. It
is an arbitrary datum.
Mr. AIKEN. I am sure it is.
Mr. O’MAHONEY, Mr. President,
that is my understanding. Sea level at
Sandy Hook is the base from which eleva¬
tions are taken.
Mr. MALONEY. Is the reference to
Sandy Hook, N. Y.; Sandy Hook, Conn.;
Sandy Hook, Vt.; or any other Sandy
Hook?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I assume that
Sandy Hook, N. Y., Is meant. At any
rate, it is a word of art which is under¬
stood by the engineers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the
view of the fact that the amendment has
been read by its author, it will not be read
at the desk.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Wyoming tMr. O’Mahoney],
8615
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, the
pending amendment is the one which
would do violence to my State, and it
might well establish a precedent which
would do harm to any other State under
similar circumstances. The amend¬
ment is a new one. It was never con¬
sidered by the committee. It came to
the Senate only this afternoon. It would
upset a program heretofore established.
It might wipe out all the projects al¬
ready planned. In my judgment it
would destroy the aim and the effort of
the Army engineers and of others who
are or who have been affected by the
dangers of floods in the lower part of
New England.
There may be some Senators who
have never seen a serious flood. But I
have seen the waters roar in my State.
During one of the serious floods there,
one was able to go into a leading hotel
in Hartford by boat. Millions and mil-
lians of dollars’ worth of damage was
done to the cities of that State. Farms
were destroyed. Livestock on the farms
was destroyed. Many lives were lost.
The adoption of this language, should
another flood come, would permit the
roaring waters again to destroy lives and
property in the maritime State whence
I come.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Would
it not also nullify the $17,000,000 already
spent on flood control by the Federal
Government, which is only a small part
of the program?
Mr. MALONEY, Mr. President, I do
not know whether It would nullify the
$17,000,000, but if a flood the like of
which we earlier had should occur, we
would be denied the right to build to a
proper protective state the work which
has already been begun.
I never heard of any part of this pro¬
posal before. I am a member of the
Committee on Commerce. The subcom¬
mittee met for a long time. It seems to
me that, quite apart from the many
other objections, it is a very unusual
request to ask that the States of New
England not only stop a program which
is well on the way, but be denied the
right to continue the program imtil some
future action by the Congress has been
taken. I do not know when another
flood-control bill will be presented to
the Senate. The pending bill involves
the expenditure of almost a billion dol¬
lars. If the pending bill is passed, and
we come to the after-the-way policy,
and the natural efforts toward economy
which I hope and pray will then be made,
it seems to me most unlikely that the
Congress will soon undertake to pass
another flood-control bill.
I realize that there is always present
the possibility that the Congress will
pass a separate bill affecting some area
of the country- But that is not easy, as
Senators know. I beg Senators to be¬
lieve that, in my knowledge, at least,
they would do us and the rest of the
country a very great injustice by agree¬
ing to this part of the so-called O’Mah¬
oney amendment.
No. 164 - 4
8616
November 28
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. President, as I have already said,
I want to cooperate with the State of
Vermont. My State enjoys a splendid
relationship with the State of Vermont
In every possible way. The names of
many towns in both States are similar
because in the early history of Vermont
the people of that State adopted the
names of many of the towns in Connecti¬
cut. Many people from Connecticut
moved into Vermont. I believe the origi¬
nal constitution of the State was an
adaptation of -
Mr. AUSTIN rose.
Mr. MALONEY. Am I incorrect in my
statement?
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I know
what the Senator has in mind. He has
in mind the original statutes of the two
States. Our constitution was largely in¬
fluenced by the first Pennsylvania Con¬
stitution. But the first statutes of Ver¬
mont were passed in the midst of great
commotions just preceding the Battle of
Bennington, and the men were in such a
hurry, because they were all warriors,
to rush to Bennington that they passed
a resolution substantially as follows:
We adopt the laws set forth in the Con¬
necticut Lawbook, and in defect thereof,
the laws of God as set forth in the Holy Bible.
There is a very strong connection, spir¬
itually and in other ways, between Con¬
necticut and Vermont, and I hope this
little flurry will not disturb it in any way
whatever.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, what
the Senator has said was what I was
endeavoring to say, but perhaps in a
clumsy way. I am very grateful to the
distinguished historian, the senior Sena¬
tor from Vermont, for his assistance.
I should like to point out that the State
of Vermont is still represented in a large
part, and particularly at this moment,
by the kind of warrior who was. once
hastening off to war at Bennington, and
in the interim was willing temporarily to
adopt the laws of the State of Connecti¬
cut, if protected by the laws of God.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. My colleague, the dis¬
tinguished senior Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Austin], has given the history as
we understand it in Vermont. But
whenever I go to Connecticut I hear that
the people of Vermont met and agreed
to abide by the laws of the State of Con¬
necticut and the laws of God until they
had time to devise better ones. [Laugh¬
ter.]
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator is cor¬
rect, and the people of Verfnont are still
endeavoring to improve their position, as
is evidenced by the work of its two great
Senators.
Mr. President, perhaps it is well to have
momentary facetiousness during the
consideration of a very serious subject
such as the one before us. I shall not
talk long about it because we have been
talking quite a long time about it al¬
ready.
The issue is clear. The proposal made
Is easy to understand. The proposal Is
that the Army engineers shall not un¬
dertake to construct the flood-control
projects already planned, and it would
wipe out the project of one dam on the
West River, the so-called Williamsville
Dam. The Army engineers have told us
that the construction of that dam is
more necessary than is any other project
in the program of providing proper flood
protection for the lower Connecticut
River Valley.
If there were another way to approach
the problem, if another avenue were
open to us and I, as one Member of the
Congress could cooperate, I would be
anxious to do so. But all other avenues
have been closed.
By the hearings which were held in
regard to the matter, the long study made
of it, and the consultations had with the
people of Vermont, as well as the hear¬
ings which were held by Congress in
which the people of Vermont were heard,
it is evident that the plan already agreed
to is the. proper one.
As I understand, the real issue is the
so-called WiUiamsville Dam. During the
holding of hearings we were told that the
project would not only bring about de¬
struction by the inundation of fertile val¬
leys but would necessitate moving a great
many people and their properties away
from the areas affected. ILie truth of
the matter is, as I have been advised by
the Army engineers, that in connection
with this particular project, the one which
has created the pending controversy, only
70 persons would be involved. Only one
small cemetery would be affected. I
make that statement on the basis of in¬
formation furnished me by the Army en¬
gineers, supported by the statements of
others who made an examination of the
proposal.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. May-
bank in the chair). Does the Senator
Mr. President, there has just been
handed to me by the distinguished junior
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Weeks]
a statement which I understand was pre¬
pared by the Army engineers. It states
the drainage area, how much land would
be needed, and about all the additional
information which one would need in
carefully examining the project. I shall
ask that it be printed in the Record after
I have referred to some of the items con¬
tained in it.
The total number of sets of buildings
located in a town affected by the Wil¬
liamsville site amounts to 55.
No churches are involved. There are
no commercial buildings involved. There
is involved one small industrial estab¬
lishment. I believe it is a woodworking
plant.
There are two small cemeteries. There
would be a need — and all of us regret
this — to relocate 350 graves. That is
serious. There is a great sentimental
attachment, almost a reverential attach¬
ment, to graves, but on the other hand
there are the millions of people in the
lower valley who would be endangered by
a serious flood.
I understand the town affected, and
first shown on this paper, is the town of
Harmonyville. There are 70 people in
the town of Harmonyville. I think there
is a fear on the part of the Senators
from Vermont, a fear which I cannot
understand as justifiable, that the Army
engineers have a broad power, under the
existing law, and that they might some
time later build a dam at another point,
I ask that the table to which I have
referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection the table was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as
follows:
from Connecticut yield to the Senator
from Vermont?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Comparative data, flood-control dams
Designation
Unit
West Kiver, Vt.
River mile
5.3, West
Dummerston
site
River mile
8.3, upper
Williamsville
site
River mile
10.8, New-
fane site
Drainage area . . . . .
Square mile _ ...
407
152, 000
462
2,770
55
55
165
390
400
149, 500
478
2,800
55
50
170
400
326
105,000
486
2,130
>55
> 45
Flood control, storage . . . .
Acre-feet _ _ _
Elevation, mean sea
level.
Acres _
Spillway crest (flow line-flood-control pool)-..
Reservoir area _ _ _
Swampland _ .............. _ _
Acres . . .
Urban _
Acres _ _ _ ......
Pasture . . . .
Cultivated . . ..........
Acres..., _
Apririiltural (Including pastnrclandl ... . . . .
Acres _ ..............
1,500
Woodland:
Cut over . . ............
Acres......
390
400
Not classified . . ..................
Acres.... _ ........
500
Woodland (standing timber) _
Acres.----. _ ......
1,715
81
2
1
4
4
4
S50
100
70
300-350
s $14, 000, 000
1,725
55
0
0
1
1
2
350
Dwellings (sets of buildings)..... _ _ _
60
Churches. _ _ _
Eaeh
Schools. _ _
Each _
Commercial buildings _
Each _
Industrial establishments... .
Each _
Cemeteries _ _
Each _
Graves (would be relocated) _ _
Faeh
350
Population (United States census 1940):
West Dummerston _ _
Harmonyville _ _
70
200-2.50
< $6, 280, 000
70
1 200-2.50
$4, 513, 500
Total in reservoir area * _ _ .. ..
Total estimated cost . . . .
> E^imatcd.
• Based on average of 4 persons per dwelling.
• Includes wide base and provisions for future power,
• As reported in H. Doc. No. 724.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE . 8617
Mr. AUSTIN. If the Senator is about
to leave the subject of the number of
people affected by a low dam, would he
permit an interruption at this point?
Mr. MALONEY. I have always per¬
mitted an interruption.
Mr. AUSTIN. I should like to call his
attention to the testimony of Mr. Tier,
who resides in the valley there. He
stated, as appears at page 168 of the
hearing in the Senate committee:
Mr. Tieh. Mr. Chairman. I would just like
to make the correction of an error that I think
was made here on the population. This mat¬
ter of the low dam and the high dam seems
to be very confusing to everyone. This esti¬
mate that Mr. Bush made was on a high dam.
Now, on a low dam, or with any dam, in fact,
West Dummerston would be inundated, and
there are about 300 people comprising that
population. It would affect Newfane, prob¬
ably not wholly, but there are 850 people
there.
Senator Cordon. How many?
Mr. Tier. Eight hundred and fifty. That
would not affect the whole village. Brookline
would be flooded out — about 150 people.
Harmonyvllle would be flooded out, on either
dam— 150.
Senator Cordon. What portion of Brookline
would be flooded out. Would you say? What
proportion of the population would be ren¬
dered homeless?
Mr. Bush. On the high dam it would be
all gone except one or two.
Senator Cordon. And on the low dam?
Mr. Bush. On the low dam there would
probably be five or six houses left.
Senator Cordon. The low dam then would
substantially obliterate it.
Mr. Bush. Yes.
I thank the Senator for permitting me
to put this in at this place.
Mr. MALONEY. I am very glad to
have it.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President -
Mr. MALONEY. Will the Senator per¬
mit me to comment on this matter?
Mr. AIKEN. I was about to make an¬
other factual suggestion.
Mr. MALONEY. Please proceed.
Mr. AIKEN. In regard to cemeteries, it
appears from the data that there are 6
cemeteries involved, with 1,075 graves.
I think probably the Army engineers
took the 1 modern cemetery, and very
likely forgot to count the old ones, where
there are hundreds of graves of pioneers.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Connecticut yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. I think the figures the
Senator has just cited are not applicable
to the particular dam which the engi¬
neers now tell me is going to be construct¬
ed if this authorization is provided for,
and I think the Senator has the figures
pertaining to that dam.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, the trouble
is that we do not know from day to day
just what kind of a dam the engineers
plan to construct, or where they are
planning to construct it. That is why
we are trying to attach amendments to
the bill, so that we will have some knowl¬
edge as to what is to be done.
Mr. MALONEY. If the Senator suc¬
ceeds in having his amendment agreed
to, he will not need to seek more knowl¬
edge; the whole program will stop.
Mr. AIKEN. I think these figures are
for the high dam which I understand
the engineers hope eventually to con¬
struct.
Mr. MALONEY. As a result of the ef¬
forts of the Senators from Vermont, or
the people of Vermont, the bill provided,
as it came here, that it should be a low
dam, and it is written in the law.
Mr. AIKEN. But we have no defini¬
tion of a low dam.
Mr. MALONEY. I have not, either, but
I. understood there was a desire on the
part of the people of Vermont that that
language be included. I think it is the
difference between a power dam and a
nonpower dam. I had believed they
should have made provision in the plans
for the future use of the dam for power
if the need arose.
Mr. AIKEN. I think the Senator will
find that the amount of money requested
would provide, even though it were a low
dam, for building a base on which it
would be possible to add, later, a con¬
siderable height to the dam, thus making
it a high dam.
Mr. MALONEY. I favor that.
Ml'. AIKEN. They would be building
it in stages, instead of all at once.
Mr. MALONEY. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. The effect on the State,
though, would be about the same.
Mr. MALONEY. The purpose of that
would be, as the Senator so well knows,
to provide for power if there were later
a need for power, and I think it is pretty
wise to go about it in that way,
Mr. AIKEN. Let me ask the Senator
now if he is insistent on the prohibition
against the development of power at any
of these dams in Vermont.
Mr. MALONEY. I did not understand
the Senator’s question.
Mr. AIKEN. The committee wrote
into the bill a strict prohibition against
the development of any power at the
dams to be constructed on the tribu¬
taries of the Connecticut River in Ver¬
mont.
Mr. MALONEY. What is the Senator
asking me?
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator be¬
lieve it is just to say that the Govern¬
ment is to take our land, take our val¬
leys, and use the storage space to
maintain the flow of the Connecticut
River down the river for the benefit of
the power plants in Massachusetts, and
at the same time insert a prohibition
saying that we simply cannot generate
one horsepower of power at the dams?
Mr. MALONEY. No; I am not in
sympathy with that, and I have so
stated on many occasions, unless it
would seriously interrupt the flood-con¬
trol program. If it would not impede the
effort toward flood control to a very
serious extent, I would favor having that
language removed from the bill.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator would
trust the Army engineers to see to that,
would he not?
Mr. MALONEY. I certainly would.
Mr. President, it has been a long time
since I noted that the figures which I
used, and the material which I asked to
have inserted in the Record, which is
the only means I have of contradicting
the statements of the Senators from
Vermont concerning cemeteries and
population, were prepared for the Sen¬
ator from Massachusetts by the Army
engineers, and I should dislike to be¬
lieve that they are overcareless in the
compilation of statistics and figures.
Mr. AUSTIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. AUSTIN. I have not the ad¬
vantage of the knowledge of the Senator
from Massachusetts with respect to the
height of the dam contemplated by the
engineers in stating these figures. I
wonder if he is willing to give us that
information.
Mr. MALONEY. I am having this
matter put in the Record.
Mr. AUSTIN. I know, but does it go
in the Record as expressing the view of
the Army engineers today as to the
height of the dam?
Mr. MALONEY. I think this is on
the basis of a so-called low dam, as is
provided in the bill, but I have no
definite knowledge of the height of the
dam.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is the trouble
with this whole matter.
Mr. MALONEY. This statement is
based on a low dam.
Mr. AUSTIN. I understand, but that
is one of the troubles with the text cf
the bill and the text of the existing law,
and that is one of the defects we desire
to correct. It will not deprive Connecti¬
cut or Massachusetts of the protection
they should get, and will not delay it.
But I shall discuss that in my own time
and not hold up the Senator.
Mr. MALONEY. I shall continue to
be hopeful that before these projects
are constructed, or before construction
is started at all, the people of the State
of Vermont and the Army engineers will
be able to come to a satisfactory under¬
standing. All I am aiming to do here
today is to prevent the interruption of
a flood-control program in its entirety.
I do not care what form it takes so long
as it gives us flood control, a proper
flood control,' or flood-control projects
which are reasonably proper. How they
come, where they are located, does not
interest me one bit. If v/e can get the
same protection by going elsewhere than
Williamsville, that is all right with me.
I am concerned because an effort is made
to stop the whole program, to deny us
the right given to all the other States
under the bill, to anticipate the further
flood-control plans which are contem¬
plated under the language of the exist¬
ing law. I do not want to permit the
destruction of the progress already
made. I do not want to see the people
of my State or the State of Massachu¬
setts or any other State subjected to
the dangers of devastating and roaring
floodwaters that are almost certain to
come again some time. We have had
terrible experiences in recent years.
Some of our war plants, plants used for
war work, plants engaged in producing
materials used later in war, on the banks
of this river, suffered great losses. Food
so sorely needed by the people all over
the world, and particularly by our own
people, was destroyed in those floods, and
other food might well be destroyed
should we have another serious flood.
But all this is superfluous. Senators
understand all of this as well or better
than I do, but I want to emphasize, as I
urge their protection to us, what this
provision would do to the States of Con-
8618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 28
necticut and Massachusetts, and what it
would do to the Connecticut River Val¬
ley, as it would do to no other valley in
the land. It would stop us where we
are, and let us look into the uncertain
future, knowing that our hands are tied.
Mr. DANAHER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I have finished, but I
will be pleased to yield.
Mr. DANAHER. I should like to ask
my colleague a question, if he has the bill
before him and will turn to page 10, lines
5 to 7. The committee amendment
reads :
Provided further, That none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shall he utilized for the generation of
hydroelectric power.
Supplementing as it does the author¬
ization of a $30,000,000 appropriation for
the comprehensive flood-control pro¬
gram, it would not do violence to the
views of my colleague, would it, if the
committee amendment were adopted?
Mr. MALONEY. To which committee •
amendment does the Senator have ref¬
erence?
Mr. DANAHER. The committee
amendment on page 10, lines 5 to 7, in¬
clusive.
Mr. MALONEY. I have no reason to
believe that it would do violence to my
views.
. Mr. DANAHER. I believe the Sen¬
ator’s answer is compelled by the argu¬
ment which he has offered. With that
statement let me offer the following; If
we were to adopt the committee amend¬
ment, and take in addition the first sen¬
tence of the substitute which has been of¬
fered by the Senator from Wyoming —
and to refresh the Senator’s recollection
I will read the first sentence from the
substitute :
Nothing In this act or in any previous au¬
thorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a reten¬
tion-type dam, not to exceed elevation 415
Sandy Hook datum on the main stream of
the West River in the towns of Dummerston
and Newfane in the State of Vermont.
If we were to take that sentence, and
add it to the committee amendment on
page 10 we not only would accomplish
the result argued for by my colleague so
ably, but we would also protect the State
of Vermont according to the assertions
which its Senators make on this floor, as
I view them. I, therefore, would re¬
phrase the entire committee amendment
and modify it to read as follows, and I
will ask my colleague’s judgment on it;
Provided further, That none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shall be utilized for the generation of
hydroelectric power; And provided further.
That nothing in this act or in any previous
Suthorizatlon shall be construed to author-
lie the construction of a dam other than
a retention-type dam not to exceed elevation
415 Sandy Hook datum on the main stream
of the West River in the town of Dummers-.
ton or Newfane in the State of Vermont.
Let me, then, suggest to my colleague
that if the amendment were modified
to read as I have just read it, not only
could the comprehensive flood-control
program go forward without interrup¬
tion, but it could also go forward without
doing violence to the town of Dummers¬
ton or Newfane in the State of Vermont.
Moreover, it would provide that no dam
other than a retention-type dam could
be erected which would exceed elevation
415 Sandy Hook datum so far as the State
of Vermont is concerned.
Mr. MALONEY. I do not know, I will
say to the Senator, what the 415-foot
Sandy Hook datum really means. I
would have to have the advice of the
Army engineers. It has just been called
to my attention that the present plan
provides for a dam 478 feet high, so there
is a difference that might be of great
moment in connection with this con¬
struction.
Mr. DANAHER. Am I not correct?
Will my colleague the Senator from Con¬
necticut yield for a further question?
Mr. MALONEY. I certainly will for
as many as my colleague desires.
Mr. DANAHER. I was simply trying
to see if we could not resolve the differ¬
ence between the viewpoint which has
been argued by my colleague and that
which has been argued by the Senators
from Vermont. If we were to agree to
the entire substitute offered by the Sen¬
ator from Wyoming, it is clear that there
would be an effective interruption of the
accomplishment of comprehensive flood
control until plans were submitted to the
Congress in accordance with paragraph
(a) of the earlier amendment adopted.
My colleague, the Senator from Con¬
necticut, is evidently correct in that as¬
sertion. I hope that perhaps we could
work out a solution of the conflicting
viewpoints along the lines I have sug¬
gested.
Mr. MALONEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. May I make an observa¬
tion to the Senator’s colleague with re¬
spect to the remarks he has just made?
Mr. MALONEY. I am glad to yield
for that purpose.
Mr. AIKEN. There is one other thing
it would accomplish which the Senator
did not call to our attention. It would
provide that the Federal Government
would condemn the land and take the
property of our people in the Vermont
valleys. It would provide that dams be
constructed at Federal expense. It
would provide that the State of Vermont
could never salvage one cent from the
electric energy produced or the cheaper
electric power which might be produced
there. It would tiurn over 100 percent
of the electric power at these dams in
the State of Vermont to the private
utility companies of the States of Massa¬
chusetts and Connecticut. That is the
main thing it would accomplish.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to say
first that I cannot understand the ob¬
servation that the Federal Government
would go into Massachusetts and Con¬
necticut to dispose of power created by
the Federal Government in Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator knows that
for years it has been the dream of the
utility companies in the States of Massa¬
chusetts and Connecticut to have dams
erected in Vermont so they could employ
down below the electric power gener«
ated by the increased flow of the Con¬
necticut.
Mr. MALONEY. I do not know that.
1 am not now ready to believe that that
Is true. And I am not ready to believe
that the Senator is correct in his asser¬
tion that the Federal Government would
own and build a dam and take power
therefrom dov/n into Massachusetts to
dispose of it to private companies. That
would not be done by this administra¬
tion, it would not be done by the power
authority we have in Washington now.
It would not be permitted by the Senate.
Mr. AIKEN. I do not care what ad¬
ministration it Is. If those reservoirs
are constructed in Vermont and the wa¬
ter is let out in such a way as to main¬
tain the flow of the Connecticut River
below, the public utilities in the States
of Massachusetts and Connecticut would
get 100 percent of the benefit. This
amendment would prohibit the State of
Vermont from getting 1 cent of value
out of the $56,000,000 which it is pro¬
posed to spend on dams in the Connecti¬
cut Valley.
Mr. MALONEY. I understand that
this language came out of Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Before I get through I
am going to write into the Record the
names of every one of the dams there.
I will tell the Senate just how much
public utilities would profit by the pro¬
posal we have before us to prohibit the
production of power in Vermont, and to
give the Government the unlimited
right to construct storage reservoirs
there.
Mr. MALONEY. Let the record be
clear that the Senator from Connecticut
is not opposed to the creation of power
in Vermont. The Senator from Con¬
necticut has said that he thought it
would be wise, in the construction of
these dams, to look into the future, to
the possibility of a need for power in
that area at a later date; and if we
should find a reasonable likelihood of a
need for power, these dams should be
constructed in such a manner that they
may later be used for the creation of
power.
Mr. AIKEN. I give the Senator credit
for saying that he has no objection to it;
but why is there insistence on a proposal
against the production of power in Ver¬
mont being written into the bill?
Mr. MALONEY. I do not know where
the proposal came from.
Mr. AIKEN. I do. It was offered by
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Over-
ton] ; and there is nothing anywhere to
show that anyone from Vermont asked
for it.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. That is an incorrect
statement. It was proposed by the sen¬
ior Senator from Vermont [Mi’. Austin]
that there be a prohibition against these
dams generating power, I am sure the
senior Senator from Vermont will admit
authorship of the proposal.
Mr. MALONEY. There are many who
believe that it would be extravagant to
talk about power in connection with some
of these little streams.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8619
Ml-. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. In view of what the
Senator from Louisiana has said, will the
Senator from Connecticut permit me to
read from the printed hearings?
Mr. MALONEY. Certainly.
Mr. AIKEN. I read from page 193 of
the printed hearings:
Senator Overton. Well, now, suppose we—
I will advance a step forward in my compro¬
mise — and this Is purely a matter of com¬
promise, of course. I can speak only for
myself, but I Just want to feel your pulse,
as it were, as we go along. Personally I
would be in favor — we will eliminate the
West River dam. All right; no dams on the
West River. And we will remove power gen¬
eration from all the other dams; we will pro¬
hibit the generation of power on all the other
dams. How about that?
That is the first time the proposal was
made. According to this record, it was
not made by anyone from Vermont.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President -
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I am
anxious to yield the floor, but I yield to
the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. OVERTON. When this question
came up the junior Senator from Ver¬
mont and the senior Senator from Ver¬
mont were present at the hearings. At
first there was objection not only to the
Williamsville site dam, or the Dummers-
ton Dam, they being one and the same,
but there was objection to other dams.
Finally we reached the point where there
was a rather slight objection to other
dams than the Williamsville site dam.
The senior Senator from Vermont, in an
off-the-record discussion — and possibly
some of it is in the record — stated that
he desired that no power be generated at
any of the Vermont dams.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. AUSTIN. Let me add to that a
phrase which qualifies it to some ex¬
tent — except by negotiation with the
people of the State, and with their con¬
sent. That qualification runs through
the whole matter.
Mr. OVERTON. That had escaped my
attention.
Mr. AUSTIN. Provided the people
consent.
Mr. OVERTON. The senior Senator
from Vermont will agree with me that
the suggestion that no power be gener¬
ated at those dams was a suggestion em¬
anating from the senior Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. AUSTIN. I think it emanated not
from the senior Senator from Vermont
but from witnesses, notably Mr. Philip
Shutler and the master of the National
Grange. I have the testimony, and I in¬
tend to call attention to it when I dis¬
cuss this subject. That is where the
question first arose, showing, first, that
we must take into account the difference
In the burden of cost which arises from
a dam built for power, as against a dam
built solely for retention in flood control.
That v/as Mr. Shutter’s point. He was
trying to ascertain whether the dam¬
ages which had been comprehended in
the cost took into account a flood control
dam or, on the contrary, a dam erected
for the purpose of permitting at some
time the production of electric energy.
That is only one side of it. Along
comes the master of the National Grange
and points out how little alluvial land
there is in Vermont, and how much more
damage is created in rendering useless
our farms in Vermont by the construction
of dams capable of generating power
than results from the construction of
dams solely for retention, to prevent
floods. So far as the master of the
Grange was concerned, the whole point
was that in those cases the people should
have an opportunity to be heard on the
question. As the Senator from Louisiana
knows, that is the important thing in the
mind of the Senator from Vermont., The
people should have an opportunity to be
heard.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield to me? I had not
completed my statement.
Mr. MALONEY. I yield to the Sen¬
ator for the purpose of completing his
statement. Then I shall yield the floor.
Mr. OVERTON, Mr. President, I do
not know where the idea of no genera¬
tion of power at the Vermont dams may
have originated: but certainly I think
the senior Senator from Vermont will
agree with me that he was at least an en¬
dorser of that proposal.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President —
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, 1
should like to continue. I have the floor,
by the good grace of the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Maloney],
Mr. MALONEY. That is true.
Mr OVERTON. Finally, since the
main objection was to the Williamsville
site dam, it was suggested that no power
be generated at any of the Vermont
dams. Personally I do not care whether
power is generated at the Vermont dams
or not; but since that suggestion had
been made, and the senior Senator from
Vermont, in whose good judgment I have
absolute confidence, was a reliable spon¬
sor, at least, of that proposal, I made the
suggestion that we could compromise the
difQculty, so far as I was personally con¬
cerned, without undertaking to bind the
committee, by eliminating the Williams¬
ville site dam entirely, and by a pro¬
vision that no power should be generated
at any of these dams.
That appeared to be acceptable. If the
junior Senator from Vermont made any
objection, I have no recollection of it.
All this took place in his presence. I
think he made some slight observation
to the effect that he was not altogether
certain whether it was agreeable to him
to remove the generation of power from
these dams.
That, Mr. President, is the sum and
substance of the whole story. I thank
the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Has
there not been a policy in the Committee
on Commerce to provide for the develop¬
ment of electricity at flood-control dams
If it is considered feasible?
Mr. MALONEY, I so understand. I
do not know whether or not it could be
called a fixed policy or not. I defer to
the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. If the
people of Vermont were really afraid
that electricity which might be developed
there would be taken away from them,
it could easily be provided in the amend¬
ment that whatever electricity was de¬
veloped there should be used in the State
of Vermont.
Mr. MALONEY. I do not know
whether that would be possible, with the
use of Federal funds.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. At
least a preference could be provided for.
Mr. MALONEY. Yes. I think so,
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. It
seems to me that this whole question
comes down to a proposal to create a
new policy and to prevent the genera¬
tion of electricity when it can be gener¬
ated at flood-control dams. So far as I
am concerned, I want every dollar spent
by the Federal Government on such proj¬
ects to be used, if it is humanly possible,
for the development of electricity and
for the sale of it to the people at the
lowest possible cost.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield.
Mr. AUSTIN. Let me ask the senior
Senator from Massachusetts if he would
want to do that entirely at the cost of the
homes of the people in our river valley?
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Of
course not.
Mr. AUSTIN. I did not think so.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I am
assuming that the Army engineers will
recommend the building of a dam pri¬
marily for flood-control purposes; but an
incidental purpose may be the develop¬
ment of electricity. I think it is a shame
that in all this legislation one dam in a
particular State should be selected at
which no electricity may be developed,
when it is the policy of the committee to
develop electricity if it can be done.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, that is
not the situation. Already we have
struck out of the bill projects which
heretofore had been agreed to. We
have struck them out entirely.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Does
the Senator mean that projects already
agreed to, by which dams are to be built
and electricity generated, have been
stricken from the bill? Have they been
stricken out so that no electricity will be
generated?
Mr. AUSTIN. No; they have not been
stricken out for that reason. We have
stricken out the projects entirely. We
are not asking for what the Senator has
suggested, certainly.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts, The
result has been that a new policy has
been adopted, if possible to prevent the
development of electricity at these dams.
Mr. AUSTIN. No, Mr. President; I do
not think that is true.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. That
is so in this case, at least.
Mr. AUSTIN. No ; I do not think that
Is true. Heretofore no Senator has had
trouble in getting these plans modifled
on the floor of the Senate. I have heard
many Senators arise and move a modi¬
fication of these plans, and such modi-
8620
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 28
fication has been adopted without any
trouble.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I
should like to say to the Senator that I
think the reason for that in this instance
is that the projects are in one State and
the flood-control needs are in another.
It so happens that Vermont cannot be
hurt by floods to the extent that we in
the lower valley can.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. Certainly.
Mr. AUSTIN. If we are smaller than
Connecticut and smaller than Massachu¬
setts, and if we have a smaller popula¬
tion, yet we are constricted in the area
we can occupy. I maintain that it is
equally bad, if not worse, to flood us out
by artiflcial means in order to protect
Massachusetts and Connecticut. I main¬
tain that it is equally bad, if not worse,
to All our valleys with water and drive
our people out of the valleys and per¬
haps out of the State, because if this
plan is carried to its logical conclusion
and if every valley is flooded, we shall
have nothing left in Vermont but a
tracery of mountain tops.
Mr. MALONEY. That would not be a
logical conclusion, let me say to the Sen¬
ator.
Mr. AUSTIN. Let me point out to the
Senator that there are to be 20 dams in
the whole project. Either 10 or 11 of
them are to be in Vermont; I am not
certain whether one of them was agreed
upon. But certainly 10 of them are to be
in Vermont, and on that side of the
mountains they take in all the valleys
which lead into the Connecticut River.
Mr. President, should we not be heard
at least on the question of the type of
dams?
Mr. MALONEY. Of course, the Sen¬
ator’s State has been heard, and it will
have a chance to be heard further.
Mr. AUSTIN. I regret very much to
say it was not heard. It is such a
curious -
Mr. MALONEY. As I understand,
representatives of the Senator’s State
testifled at the hearings on the subject
on three occasions, namely, 1938, 1941,
and this time.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
attorney general of the State has been
present at all those hearings, every time
a matter of flood control affecti^ Ver¬
mont has been before the Congress.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; that is to say, with
respect to legislation. I am talking
about plans in the field.
Mr. MALONEY. I presume that the
Army engineers had more consultations
with the distinguished junior Senator
from Vermont [Mr. Aiken], when he was
Governor of Vermont, than they did with
the governors of many other States of
the Union.
Mr. AUSTIN. The question was asked
whether the people of Vermont favor or
oppose the use of these dams for flood
control. While that question was being
asked there was delivered to me a tele¬
gram from a prominent leader of thought
in Vermont, who, I think, is well known
to many Senators here, Ralph E. Flan¬
ders. His telegram reads as follows:
Boston, Mass.,
November 28, 1944 — 3:48 p. m.
Hon. Warren R. Austin,
United States Senate,.
Washington, D. C.:
I very much hope that in connection with
pending legislation you will be able to ar¬
range to protect the Inhabitants of the West
River Valley. To my mind this is best done
by recognizing in legislation the principle
that no power project, public or private,
should be Imposed on a State without its own
consent and that flood control should be
arranged by negotiation.
Ralph E. Flanders.
Mr. President, that is substantially our
position.
Mr. MALONEY. I think I could sub¬
scribe to that. I am not sure, but I think
I could. I believe a flood-control plan
should be worked out by cooperation.
We have always endeavored to do it that
way. That is the policy of the Army en¬
gineers and it is the policy of the Con¬
gress. But Vermont now says, “You must
hear us. You must accept our decision or
you cannot have flood-control projects
In our State.”
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. Of course.
Mr. AUSTIN. I wish to have the Sen¬
ator yield for a friendly observation. Let
me say that I promise to try to show that
what we ask will not stop the work, will
not set back the work, and will not affect
the whole plan for the valley, even so
far as it relates to Vermont. Only a small
part of the project is involved, and that
part of it is not likely to be reached even
if we do not amend the law before an¬
other session of Congress. But, as the
Senator has inquired, when will we have
another flood-control bill?
Mr. MALONEY. When will we have
another flood? That concerns me more.
Mr. AUSTIN. The flood has not yet
arrived. We do not wish to have a flood
Imposed upon us by building a dam
around us. That is the main thing. All
this protection can be had without flood¬
ing us out. I am sure the Senator is for
that.
Mr. MALONEY. I am for every bit of
cooperation I can give the State of Ver¬
mont to the extent that it does not in¬
crease the flood dangers in my State.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MALONEY. I yield the floor.
Mr. WEEKS. The distinguished sen¬
ior Senator from Vermont [Mr. Austin]
has said that in the amendments which
have been adopted some projects have
been abandoned. The point I should like
to make is that we are in the middle of
this project which in total involves ap¬
proximately $75,000,000 — $45,000,000 has
already been authorized and appropri¬
ated — $17,000,000 has been spent in erect¬
ing dikes at Hartford and at Springfield.
Those dikes have been erected to a height
which would be adequate for flood-pro¬
tection purposes if the dams which are a
part of the total project were constructed
and put into operation.
Twenty-eight million dollars has also
been authorized and appropriated for the
emection of some of the dams among the
20. Three of the dams in the State of
Massachusetts have already been con¬
structed.
So, Mr. President, the point I wish to
make is that this is not a case of aban¬
doning a project. It is the interruption
of the orderly construction of the en¬
tire number of 20 dams and the dykes
on the lower Connecticut River which
go to make up the project as a whole.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment of the Senator from Wyoming of¬
fered as a substitute for lines 3 to 7 on
page 10 of the bill.
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I am
pleased to have a telegram from Mr.
E. K. Dean, president of the Kansas
Farmers’ Union, with respect to the
pending flood-control bill. I ask unani¬
mous consent that it be printed in the
Record, as a part of the debate on the
pending proposed legislation.
There being no objection, the tele¬
gram was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows :
Salina, Kans., November 28, 1944.
Senator Arthur Capper,
Senate Building:
Our organization is bitterly opposed to the
flood control and rivers and harbors bills
presently being considered. We abhor the
efforts of special interest groups to pass leg¬
islation foreclosing the people’s rights to
full development and use of the vast re¬
sources of our valleys. The bills now under
consideration will waste vast sums of money
in partial development of our river valleys
for the protection of and use by special-
interest groups. We urge you to use all
of your Influence to have these bills carried
over to the next session of Congress when
time will be available to give proper con¬
sideration to full development of our valley
resources in the interest of all of the people.
Will appreciate your Inserting this telegram
in the Congressional Record.
Kansas Farmers’ Union,
E. K. Dean, President.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, if the
amendment is agreed to, this is how the
bill, on page 9, line 21, would read as
respects the Connecticut River Basin:
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN
In addition to previous authorizations,
there is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated the sum of $30,000,000 for the prosecu¬
tion of the comprehensive plan approved
in the act of June 28, 1938, as modified by
the act approved August 18, 1941, for the
Connecticut River Basin: Provided, That
nothing in this act or in any previous au¬
thorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a
retention type dam, not to exceed elevation
415 Sandy Hook datum on the main stream of
the West River in the towns of Dummerston
or Newfane, in the State of Vermont. Plans
proposals, or reports heretofore authorized
for construction at Cambridgeport, Ludlow,
South ’Tunbridge, and Gaysville, in the Con¬
necticut River Basin, or any modification
of the comprehensive plan for the Con¬
necticut River Basin in Vermont heretofore
made under authority of the Flood Control
Act of June 28, 1938, or heretofore made
under authority of section 3 of the Flood
Control Act approved August 18, 1941, shall
not be carried out until after compliance
with the provisions of paragraph (a) of sec¬
tion — of this act.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8G21
In order to understand the relation¬
ship to the project which has been dis¬
cussed, I read from the report of the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har¬
bors dated April 18, 1940, which is des¬
ignated as House Document No. 724, and
is expressly referred to by number in
both the acts relating to the project for
which appropriations are requested in
the amendment before us. I refer to
the act of June 28, 1938, and the act of
August 18, 1941.
“1.” That is a reference number.
Under the heading “Reservoir” ap¬
pears “Knightville.”
Under the heading “Stream” appears
“Westfield.”
Drainage area in square miles, 164.
Capacity, acre-feet, 39,300.
Flood control, $2,318,000.
Adaptations for power, $433,000.
Total flood control plus adaptations,
$2,751,000.
That is No. 1. There are 20 of those
items. They comprehend river valleys
in the Connecticut River Basin, in Mas¬
sachusetts, and in Vermont.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent to have the remainder of this table
printed in the Record at this point as
a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
Costs
Krf-
rr-
cnoe
No.
Reservoir
Stream
Drainage
area
(square
miles)
Capacity
(acre-feet)
Flood con¬
trol
Adapta¬
tions for
power
Total
flood con¬
trol plus
adapta¬
tions
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
2
Knightville _
Westfield . .
lfi4
39. 300
33, 900
24. 300
22, 150
49, 900
26, 200
32, 500
78, 400
34, 100
$2, 318, 000
2, 317, 000
965, 000
$433, 000
$2, 751, 000
2, 317, 000
965, 000
759,000
3, 005, 000
1, 935, 000
1, 620, 000
5, 160, 000
2, 520, 000
6, 530, 000
6, 280, 000
1, 975, 000
2, 944, 000
2, 018, 000
2, 200, 000
3, 030, 000
2, 275, 000
4, 785, 000
2, 376, 000
1, 415, 000
2
West Brookfield _
Chicopee (Quaboag) _
lOR
3
Barre Falls _
Chicopee ('Ware)—'. _
57
4
Tully _ _
Millers (Tully).'. .
50
665, 000
3, 005, 000
1, 935, 000
1, 620, 000
5, 160, 000
2, 240, 000
6, 530, 000
5, 960, 000
1, 975, 000
94, 000
5
Birch Hill _
Millers . .
6
Honey Hill _
Ashuelot (South Branch).
Ashuelot _ _
70
7
Siirrv Mountain
100
8
Claremont _
Sugar... _ _
245
ft
West Canaan
Mascoma . . .
80
280,000
10
Sugar HUl .
A mmouoosuo ... _
246
91, 600
150, 000
n
Williamsvillfi
West.. .
400
320, 000
12
CaTTibriflppporf;
Saxtons. . . . .
58
21, 600
13
Brockway . .
Williams _
101
32, 300
33, 400
23,900
2, 944, 000
2, 018, 000
1, 741,000
3, 630, 000
2, 275, 000
4, 080, 000
1, 944, 000
1, 023, 000
34
North Springfield _ _
Black _ _
1 102
15
Ludlow .
. do _ _
56
459, 000
If)
North Rftrt.lflnrl
OttauQuechee . .
222
71, 100
17
South TnnhridgA
White (First Branch) .
102
32, 600
38
Gaysville . . .
White .
220
84, 300
30, 200
705, 000
432, 000
392, 000
19
Union Village _ _ _
Ompompanoosue .
126
20
66
28, 200
Total .
2,752
939, 950
54, 345, 000
3,115,000
57, 460, 000
' Exclusive of drainage area above Ludlow.
Mr. AUSTIN. Of those 20 projects at
least 10 are in Vermont, and the pro¬
posal before the Senate is to have a
review of only the following: Cambridge-
port, Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and
Gaysville.
Mr. President, I ask Senators to ex¬
amine them and see what proportion of
the entire project they represent, and
then answer the question whether this
amendment would stop the project of
flood control in the Connecticut River
Basin.
Cambridgeport is No. 12 on the table.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. Did the Senator from
Vermont include the West River dam in
his table?
Mr. AUSTIN. Certainly not. I am
talking only about those projects which
would be held up by the amendment. The
West River dam project has been au¬
thorized specifically as to height. I be¬
lieve this is the first time it has ap¬
peared in anything about which we in
Congress know.
Mr. President, allow me to read the
first sentence and then I will return to
what I was undertaking to do. This is
the part which relates to the West River
Dam.
Nothing In this act or in any previous au¬
thorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a re¬
tention type dam, not to exceed elevation 415
Sandy Hook datum on the main stream of
the West River in the towns of Dummerston
or Newfane in the State of Vermont.
That is all there is on that point. That
would not knock out the protection which
would be afforded the cities and villages
and farm lands lying to the south, so
far as the West River Valley is concerned.
The dam is higher than the one which
has been considered by the local people,
which has an elevation of spillway of 410
feet above the datum to which I have re¬
ferred. We have offered 5 additional feet
in order to be on the conservative side.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, may I
ask the Senator from Vermont a ques¬
tion?
Mr. AUSTIN. I do not want to get too
far away from what I started to prove.
Mr. MALONEY. I merely wanted to
ask the Senator how he arrived at the
elevation 41, Sandy Hook datum.
Mr. AUSTIN. We arrived at it from
the surveys made by our local people in
undertaking to find an alternative plan
which would protect our good neighbors
south of us and not inundate us beyond
reason. This project would result in the
inundation of some of our buildings, and
we would have to remove houses and
people and find places for them else¬
where. But the dam is what I regard aB
being the lower dam. When we previ¬
ously discussed the matter, without any
figures representing the elevation of the
spillway, and speaking of the dam as the
low dam, I thought of the dam at 410
feet elevation. The one proposed would
have a leeway of 5 additional feet.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I shall
not interrupt the Senator at the present
time, but I should like to question him
later.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; indeed. I am very
greatly concerned to have my neighbors
from Connecticut and Massachusetts
understand our position, because it is of
the greatest importance to us to continue
the feeling" of interest in each other’s
welfare which we have always had. I
consider that far more important than
the other questions here involved. I
want to be able to discuss the question
with them on that basis so that we' can
come to an understanding instead of
pulling apart. There is no other basis
on which I wish to discuss the matter.
'What I am undertaking to prove Is
that we are not asking by the proposed
amendment to stop the project of flood
control in the Connecticut River Basin.
We are not attempting to defer anything
more than a small part of the project.
We are asking only for suflacient defer¬
ment to enable us to present our views to
the Army engineers. That is all. Ninety
days would be sufficient.
Mr. President, I return to what I was
undertaking to prove.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I dis¬
like to interrupt the Senator now, but
I am afraid the Senate may misunder¬
stand me if I do not interrupt him. If
I correctly understood the Senator, he
said that all he asked for was 90 days’
delay and that the matter might be ad¬
justed within that length of time. I do
not think that would be possible.
Mr. AUSTIN. Let us see. We will
not come to that yet, if the Senator will
excuse me for trying to finish the point
I am making. We will take up the other
point later.
Mr. MALONEY. I am sorry I inter¬
rupted the Senator.
Mr. AUSTIN. I am claiming that the
proposals or reports heretofore author¬
ized for construction at Cambridgeport,
Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysville
comprehend relatively small parts of the
total Connecticut River Basin projects.
I shall start with the first one, Cam¬
bridge.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President -
Mr. AUSTIN. Will not the Senator let
me go on for a brief time?
Mr. WEEKS. I merely desire to com¬
ment on that part of the Senator’s state¬
ment.
* Mr. AUSTIN. The Senator may com¬
ment later. Let me do what I have
started out three times to do.
At Cambridgeport the stream is
the Saxtons River. Drainage area, 58
squai'e miles. Capacity, acre-feet, 21,-
600. Flood control, $1,975,000. There
is nothing allowed there for powei’.
8622
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 28
Total flood control, plus adaptations,
$1,975,000.
Now let us look at Ludlow. Ludlow
is the fifteenth item on the Black River.
Consider now the area of drainage.
Drainage area, square miles, 56. By the
way, Mr. President, that is the smallest
one of all the 20. Capacity, acre-feet,
23,900. Flood control, $1,741,000. Adap¬
tations for power, $459,000. Total,
$2,200,000.
Now we come to South Tunbridge.
That is the seventeenth item. It is on
White River. First, as to the drainage,
the drainage area, in square miles, is 102.
Capacity, acre-feet, 32,600. Flood con¬
trol, $2,275,000. Nothing for adaptations
for power. Total, $2,275,000.
The last one is Gaysville, on the White
River. Drainage area, squaFe miles, 226.
Capacity, acre-feet, 84,300. Flood con¬
trol, $4,080,000. Adaptation for power,
$705,000. Total, $4,785,000.
Now, Mr. President, compare those
figures to that whole project. The drain¬
age area for the project is 2,752 square
miles. The capacity in acre-feet is
939,950. Flood control, $54,345,000.
Adaptations for power, $3,115,000. Total,
flood control, plus adaptations, $57,-
460,000.
Mr. President, I am glad to have been
able to put these figures into the Record
tonight, because if anyone cares to exam¬
ine them overnight before we take up
the question tomorrow, he will see how
absurdly small the claim is that by post¬
poning so that we can have a chance to
consider the question whether these
funds for adaptation for fiood control
should be spent, and especially whether
the valley in these particular instances
should be fiooded the extra amount re¬
quired to generate electricity, we would
be hindering the plan adopted by the
Congress for those particular valleys.
Mr. President, it is not necessary for
us to make a hard and fast declaration
that in every instance we are against the
use for generating electricity of these
waters which are impounded for fiood
control. We would not want to take that
position. We want to be able to examine
each case on its merits, and I know my
colleague the junior Senator from Ver¬
mont [Mr. Aiken] takes that position.
Is not that so?
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. AUSTIN. Any attempt to drive a
wedge between him and me on that point
will fail, because I believe we are in
agreement on it. Is not that so?
Mr. AIKEN. We can agree on this
amendment; in fact, we have been work¬
ing together on the amendment, and in
looking through the report I cannot find
any place where my colleague asked for
the prohibition on power, as has been
stated.
Mr. AUSTIN. I am glad my colleague
has called attention to that point.
Mr. AIKEN. Although the figures
which my colleague has read are the fig¬
ures which were submitted last spring,
there have been great changes in some
of them since they were released last
spring, particularly as to the Williams-
ville site, and changes are still taking
place, I find on inquiry of the Army
engineers.
Mr. AUSTIN. We are not aware of
that; we do not know exactly what the
correct figures are. All we know is that
they have been suBQclently changed to
make this appropriation which comes
before us today $30,000,000.
Mr. AIKEN. For instance, the figures
my colleague has read show that the
cost of fiood control at Williamsville was
$5,960,000, and for adaptation of power
$320,000, or $6,280,000 in full. It was
stated in the committee, as I recall, that
the contemplated cost would be about
$29,100,000. I have with me a letter from
the Army engineers.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. I think the dam which
is involved in the $29,000,000 figures has
not been under discussion for some time.
Certainly the committee report involves
a dam which on the record is to cost $6,-
280,000, and I do not think the $29,000,000
figure has been in the picture for quite a
while.
Mr. AIKEN. When I speak in my own
time I shall put this letter in the Record,
showing that the figure “$6,280,000” has
been greatly changed. The letter is
signed by Colonel Goethals, so I think it
is accurate.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I think I
am not overemphasizing this point with
respect to the question of whether Ver¬
mont is unreasonable in asking for this
amendment. If Vermont were asking
that the entire Connecticut River project
should be suspended for the purpose of a
review, some people might regard that as
a wise thing to do, but that is not the sit¬
uation, and the complaint made here
that that is what we are effecting by the
amendment we have offered, that is,
holding up the protection of Massachu¬
setts and Connecticut from floods, is not
accurate. That is what I want my col¬
leagues to understand. Therefore, I call
attention to the relative importance of
these valleys, protection of which would
be postponed long enough for a review.
Here is No. 12, Cambridgeport, drain¬
age area square miles 58. Comparing 58
square miles with the total, 2,752 square
miles, it can be seen how utterly ridic¬
ulous it is to take the position that this
provision would tie up the whole project.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. I am very sorry I was
called from the Chamber and did not hear
the Senator’s statement, and I am even
more sorry, for my sake, that I have been
called from the Chamber again. I should
like to ask the Senator a question at this
point which he might consider overnight.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.
Mr. MALONEY. Was the name “Wil¬
liamsville” left out of the first sentence
of the proposed amendment by error?
Mr. AUSTIN. No; I do not think so.
Williamsville is on the West River.
Mr. MALONEY. Yes. I will tell the
Senator what I mean. The first sen¬
tence reads as follows:
Nothing In this act or In any previous au¬
thorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a re¬
tention type dam, • • • on the main
stream of the West River, In the towns of
Dummerston or Newfane In the State Of
Vermont.
I was wondering if the Senator would
be willing to add the town of Williams¬
ville there?
Mr. AUSTIN. There is not any town
of Williamsville. I think Williamsville
is a station.
Mr. MALONEY. Is it in one of those
two towns?
Mr. AUSTIN. It is in one of those two
towns.
Mr. MALONEY. It would be agreeable
to me if we could have that understand¬
ing. Then I was wondering if the Sena¬
tor would be willing to change the dam
height from 415 to 478 feet, or the figure
for a low dam given by the Army en¬
gineers.
Mr. AUSTIN. I will consult those who
are here from Vermont representing the
State government and who have knowl¬
edge of technical matters which I do
not have.
Mr. MALONEY. If the Senator would
be willing to consider those two features,
the inclusion of the town of Williams¬
ville, unless it is in the town of Dummers¬
ton or the town of Newfane, and the
modification or the change in the figures
of the height of the dam from 415 to 478
feet as the low dam height, I think there
is a strong likelihood that we might be
able to reach an agreement.
Mr. AUSTIN'. Then, Mr. President,
might I save energy by suspending at
this point so as to consult with people
who can advise me in answer to this
proposition, and so far as I have any
privilege to reclaim the floor in the
morning I should like to save that privi¬
lege.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tun-
NELL in the chair). Does the Senator
ask that he be given the floor tomorrow
when the Senate convenes?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; if I can obtain
imanimous consent.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President,
would there be any objection if we were
to proceed with some of the other fea¬
tures of the amendment?
. Mr. AUSTIN. Tonight?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes.
Mr. AUSTIN. I have no objection at
all. My last statement was provoked by
my good friend the Senator from Con¬
necticut [Mr. Maloney] suggesting a
compromise which may be accepted. It
all depends on whether this height of
dam is within reason or not dnd within
the principle of getting the maximum
amount of control of floodwaters at the
minimum amount of damage to the peo¬
ple in the valley.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Then, Mr. Presi¬
dent, let me say that there are -
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wyoming yield to me be¬
fore he proceeds further?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Surely.
Mr. WHITE. I hope the Senator from
Wyoming will not urge that the Senate
proceed at this hour to other matters.
In the first place I think it is unfortunate
to have new matter projected into the
middle of a talk by the Senator from
Vermont. But beyond that, it is now
after 5 o’clock. 'There is but a hand-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
ful of Senators present. It would be
diflScult in the extreme to get many more
here, and I understand further that the
acting majority leader, the Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Hill], has other matters
that he would like to dispose of this
evening.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the
only reason I made the suggestion was
that there are some items which are alto¬
gether noncontroversial.
Mr. WHITE. I never yet have been
able to make certain what was noncon¬
troversial and what was controversial.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Those matters on
which the Senator from Maine and I
agree are noncontroversial.
Mr. WHITE. In other words, the mat¬
ters upon which we agree are right.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I do not have the
floor. I simply rose to make a sugges¬
tion.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Well, who¬
ever has the floor is requested to yield.
The Souris River Valley project, the di¬
version of water from one watershed to
another, represents a highly controver¬
sial proposal. I am not disposed to in¬
terfere with consideration of noncontro¬
versial portions of the Senator’s amend¬
ment, but I do not wish any agreement
to be made which would preclude me
from offering an amendment which
would prohibit such a diversion.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I would not think
of doing such a thing.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I am sure
the Senator would not.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Davis] wishes to offer several amend¬
ments on behalf of himself and the junior
Senator from Pennsylvania, which are
not controversial. The senior Senator
from Pennsylvania has been waiting here
all day for an opportunity to dispose of
the amendments. Also the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. Gillette] has an amendment
which is not at all controversial. The
amendments I mentioned can be con¬
sidered and agreed to quickly, I am sure.
The Senators I have referred to would
like to be accommodated in this respect,
and I should be very happy to accom¬
modate them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Mr. OVERTON. I yield to the Senator
from Pennsylvania to offer the amend¬
ments.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, on behalf
of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Guffey] and myself I offer an
amendment which I ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 11, it
is proposed to strike out lines 19 to 24
inclusive, and on page 12 it is proposed to
strike out lines 1 and 2.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I take it there Is no con¬
troversy between the distinguished junior
Senator from Pennsylvania and the
senior Senator from- Pennsylvania with
respect to this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS. No, Mr. President. Both
the junior Senator from Pennsylvania
and I have agreed on this and three other
amendments I am about to offer.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I take it
from a rather hasty examination of the
amendments that they relate simply to
projects affecting the State of Pennsyl¬
vania?
Mr. DAVIS. The Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania on behalf of himself and
the junior Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Guffey].
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
next amendment offered by the senior
Senator from Pennsylvania on behalf of
himself and his colleague will be stated.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 26, it
is proposed to strike out lines 16 to 20
inclusive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the next amendment of¬
fered by the Senator from Pennsylvania
on behalf of himself and his colleague.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 38,
following line 22, it is proposed to insert;
“Juniata River and tributaries, Penn¬
sylvania, with special reference to the
proposed Raystown Reservoir.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the next amendment of¬
fered by the Senator from Pennsylvania
on behalf of himself and his colleague.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 39,
following line 13 it is proposed to insert
“Youghiogheny River Basin, Pa. and
Md.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, on be¬
half of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Gil¬
lette] I offer an amendment which is not
objectionable, and which I send to the
desk and ask to have stated.
' The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 17,
after line 13, it is proposed to add the
following: “Provided, That the elevation
of the crest of the spillway of the dam
shall not exceed 780 feet above mean sea
level.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I should
like to ask the Senator from Vermont a
question. Are lines 5 to 7, inclusive, on
page 10, included in the Senator's amend¬
ment, or are they eliminated?
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, that is a
very important question. The effect of
this amendment, as now presented, is to
do exactly the same thing that is called
for in my original amendment, but the
8623
Anger is pointed at the precise river val¬
leys, instead of covering everything gen¬
erally. It is pointed right at the valleys
that are named in the amendment. No¬
tice this language:
Plans, proposals, or reports heretofore au¬
thorized for construction at Cambridgeport,
Ludlow, South Tumbridge, and Gaysville,
in the Connecticut River Basin, or any
modification of the comprehensive plan for
the Connecticut River Basin in Vermont
heretofore made under authority of the
Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, or here¬
tofore made under authority of section 3 of
the Flood Control Act approved August 18,
1941, shall not be carried out until after
compliance with the provisions of para¬
graph (a) of section — of this act.
Section (a) was adopted by the Sen¬
ate just before we took up this amend¬
ment. It provides for notice to the State
authorities of the modifications to be
made. There was a big blanket of modi¬
fications to be made in the discretion of
the Secretary of War and the Chief of
Engineers. We not only vested the Fed¬
eral Government with complete control,
but we named the men who should be
able, in their discretion, tomorrow to
modify the plans agreed upon in Con¬
gress. This language eliminates that
power. In effect, it provides that that
general authority is now taken care of
by us. We say that any modification
heretofore made shall come under sec¬
tion (a).
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. LANGER. Does it or does it not
strike out lines 5 to 7 on page 10 of the
bill?
Mr. AUSTIN. As I understand. It
does.
Mr. LANGER. In order to make it
clear, let me read it:
Provided further. That none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shaU be utilized for the generation
of hydroelectric power,
Mr. AUSTIN. I had not caught the
point of the Senator’s question. I do
not believe it strikes out that language.
I do not think it could, that being a com¬
mittee amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. Is there any objection to
withdrawing the committee amend¬
ment?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. That is for the
committee to do.
Mr. AIKEN. That would go a long
way toward straightening things out.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
am sure if the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Overton] were consulted about it,
he would have no objections to the elimi¬
nation of the committee amendment;
but I am not the one to speak for the
committee, of course.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, I object to the elimination of the
committee amendment until we find out
what is going in in its place. I am per¬
fectly willing to agree on the compro¬
mise when we know what the compromise
is. As a member of the committee, I cer¬
tainly object to the elimination of the
committee amendment until we know
what is to take its place.
No. 164 - 5
8624
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 28 *
CONTINUATION OP GENERAL MARSHALL
AS CHIEF OF STAFF
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, It is my
understanding that the pending busi¬
ness, the flood-control bill, is being
passed over until tomorrow. I intend to
ask unanimous consent for the consider¬
ation of a bill passed by the House yes¬
terday. An identical bill was approved
by the Senate Committee on Military
Affairs last Friday and is now on the
Senate Calendar. It would allow the
retention of General Marshall as Chief of
Staff of the Army. I refer to Senate bill
2192, Calendar No. 1210. The Senate
Military Affairs Committee reported a
bill in the identical language of the
measure passed by the House. So I ask
unanimous consent that House bill 5493
be substituted for Calendar 1210, Senate
bill 2192, and that the House bill be now
considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from South Dakota?
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Of course, the Senator is
asking that the flood-control bill, the
pending business, be temporarily laid
aside, and that the Senate consider the
House bill to which he has referred?
Mr. GURNEY. I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the unfinished business be tem¬
porarily laid aside, and that the Senate
proceed to consider House bill 5493; also
that Senate bill 2192 be indefinitely post¬
poned.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from South Dakota? The Chair hears
none.
The Chair lays before the Senate a bill
coming over from the House of Repre¬
sentatives, which will be read.
The bill (H. R. 5493) to provide for
the continuation on the active list of the
Regular Army for the duration of any of
the wars in which the United States is
now engaged, and for 6 months there¬
after, of any officer on the active list of
the Regular Army who has served as
Chief of Staff during the wars in which
the United States is now engaged was
read the first time by its title and the
second time at length, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.. That neither the pro¬
visions of the act of June 30, 1882 (22 Stat.
118), which require the retirement of an offi¬
cer on the active list of the Regular Army
upon attaining the age of 64 years, nor any
other similar provisions of law, shall for the
duration of any of the wars In which the
United States is now engaged, and for 6
months thereafter, be applicable to any officer
on the active list of the Regular Army who,
prior to the enactment of this act, has served
as Chief of Staff during the wars in which
the United States is now engaged.
The bill was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection. Senate bill 2192 will be in¬
definitely, postponed.
RIVER/^’anD harbor IMPROVEMENTS
Mr/ CONNALLY. Mr. President, I
submit two amendments to the river and
h^or bill, and ask that they be printed
and lie on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments will be printed and lie on
the table.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. HILL. I move that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of executive
business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded . to the consideration
of executive business.
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following favorable reports of
nominations were submitted:
By Mr. WHEELER, from the Committee
on Interstate Commerce:
George M. Barnard, of Indiana, to be an
Interstate Commerce Commissioner for the
remainder of the term expiring December 31,
1950, vice Joseph B. Eastman, deceased.
By Mr. McKELLAR, from the Committee
on Post Offices and Post Roads :
Sundry postmasters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tun-
NELL in the chair). If there be no fur¬
ther reports of committees, the clerk
will state the nominations on the Cal¬
endar.
THE ARMY
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the Army.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, as I under¬
stand, under the agreement those nom¬
inations will be passed over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the Army nominations will be
passed over.
OFFICE OP WAR MOBILIZATION AND RE¬
CONVERSION-ADVISORY BOARD
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nomination of members of the
Advisory Board in the Office of War Mo¬
bilization and Reconversion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations in the Office
of War Mobilization and Reconversion
are confirmed en bloc.
THE JUDICIARY
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Joseph W. Kehoe to be United
States district judge for Division No. 2
of Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
The legislative clerk read the nomin¬
ation of Gerald A. Gleeson to be United
States attorney for the eastern district
of Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
The legislative clerk read the nomi¬
nation of Steve M. King to be United
States attorney for the eastern district
of Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Jordan B. Royall to be United
States marshal for the northern district
of Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With¬
out objection, the nomination is con¬
firmed.
THE MARINE CORPS
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the Marine Corps.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations in the Marine
Corps are confirmed en bloc.
POSTMASTERS
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations of postmasters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With¬
out objection, the nominations of post¬
masters are confirmed en bloc.
That completes the calendar.
Mr. HILL. I ask unanimous consent
that the President be immediately noti¬
fied of aU nominations confirmed today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With¬
out objection, the President will be noti¬
fied forthwith.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, have all
the nominations on the executive calen¬
dar been confirmed?
Mr. HILL. With the exception of
those in the Army. They went over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That Is
correct.
RECESS
Mr. HILL. As in legislative session,
I move that the Senate take a recess
until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 5
o’clock and 17 minutes p. m.) the Senate
took a recess until tomorrow, Wednes¬
day, November 29, 1944, at 12 o’clock
meridian.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate November 28 (legislative day
of November 21), 1944:
District of Columbia
Guy Mason to be a Commissioner of the
District of Columbia for a term of 3 years,
and until his successor Is appointed and
qualified.
Office of War Mobilization and
Reconversion
MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD
Public members
O. Max Gardner
William H. Davis
Anna M. Rosenberg
Labor members
William Green ,
Philip Murray
T. C. Cashen
Agriculture members
Edward A. O’Neal
, James G. Patton
Albert S. Goss
Industry members
Eric A. Johnston
George H. Mead
Nathaniel Dyke, Jr.
The Judiciary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDOl
Joseph W. Kehoe to be United States dls-
trlce Judge for division No. 2 of Alaska.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
Gerald A. Gleeson to be United States at¬
torney for the eastern district of Pennsyl¬
vania.
Steve M. King to be United States attorney
for the eastern district of Texas.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
Jordan B. Royall to be United States mar¬
shal for the northern district of Florida.
In the Marine Corps
PROMOTIONS, FOR TEMPORARY SERVICE
To be major generals, for temporary service,
from dates indicated
Earl C. Long, from January 7, 1944.
Pedro del Valle, from January 10, 1944.
Louis E. Woods, from September 10, 1944.
Field Harris, from September 10, 1944.
OFriCB OF BUDGBT aI'HD PIHjU'ICB . ySth^Snci, Bo. 165
Lef^islative LcTorts and Service Section • ■
DIGEST OF PEOCEEDIBGS OF COBGBESS OF IBTEEEST TO THE DEPARTI4EBT OF aGEICULTUEE
(issued Bovemder 30, 1944, for actions of Wednesday, ^ovem4£:c 194U).
(For staff of the Department only)
COBTEBTS
iNyiking and currency., 5
Education . 6, l4
Flood control . 7
Foreign trade. . 11
Forestry. ,■ . 1,10
Imports . , . 11
Land grants . V. .8
Personnel . . . . \4
Price control.... . 1^
Eecl.amation. . . . 8
Eoad authorizations. . . .1
Slnall business. . . . 9
St . Lawrence Waterway. . .
3,13
Transportation. .1,3.8.13
■.Veterans . 4,8
^ar powers . 2
\ ■
JIOUSE
' ^
1. EOAD AUTHOEIZATIOB^. Pas^d S. 2105, the road-authorizations hill, vrith the
language of H. E, 49,15^-.^s amended (up. 8691-707)*
Agreed to the follow^^^g additional amendments hefore/^pjassing thq Senate hill;
By Eep. Wolcott, ;:"Mib4. 1 'to provide for deduction of advances of funds, to
any Stat^^', expeditious project completion, from the succeeding
year’ s/apportionmept (p. 869S).
By Eep. Sauthoff, Wis., to prohibit advance payments to any State if such
State has diverted motor-vehicle revenues intended for highway pur¬
poses .to other uses (p, ••8698) , -
By Eft]^. Ah erne thy. Miss,, to increase .the authorizatiun for national -park
roads and trails from $15,000,000 to $30,000,000 (up. 8699~70l). *
ByEep. Case, S. Dak,, to authorize'^>-$8, 000, 000 annually for Indian resenva-
tion roads (pp* 8701-2). .
By Eep. Eandolph, W. Va. , to strike out .Sec, 11, providing for aircraft
flight strips adjacent to> public highways (p. 8702). , ■ ,
■E-e jected the following amendments:
By Eep. Gillie, Ind. , to authorize the use of funds under this .-act for the
rerouting, etc., of railway tra.cks vjhen a. State Highway. Commission
d'e.ems it to he in the public interest (pp.'’s8693“6) •
By Eep. B'aall, Md. , to authorize use of 50^ of State appor'tionment for the
const'iruction of toll roads (p. 8697)*
By Eep. Hope,\Kans., to increase the authorization fori forest-development
roads from $12,500,000 to $25,000,000 (pp. 8698-9T<^ ^
By Eep. Welch, Cajlif., to provide for ”the building of roads in defense
areas " (pp. X704-7).
By Eep. Miller., Conh.^, to strike out Seci 12, requiring State and PEA ap¬
proval of the signs installed or i)laoed by any public authbrity^^ ,
(pp. 8705-7). \ . '
By Eep.. Gifford, Pa., t(Aprovide for approval of the State and PEA
of any signs placed ^’adjacent -to" highways -(p. 8707)._ ' ^ '
Eep. Stewart’s amendment to increase the Federal share from 6o’^ to 75^ /was
ruled out on a point of order by.. Eep. . Wolcott, Mich. (pp. 8696-7). ,^ep.
Wolcott, in reply to Eep, Harris, Ark., stated that the provision in his amend¬
ment .which was agreed to Boveraber to provide that the "first post-war fis¬
cal year shall be the fiscal year 1^45," could be worked out by the conferees
(p. 8691). . •• •
- 2 -
2. POWERS. Agreed to the resolution providing for consideration of H, R, ,
4^3 » 'to extend the Second War Powers Act (pp. 8709-IO).
'This hill (see Digest l64) extends until not later than December ^1, 1945,
the fol’’l,9wing titles of the Second War Pov;ers Act:
I, emergency ICC powers over motor and water carriers;
II, acquisition and disposition of property;
III, priorities powers;
IV, purchase of Government obligations by the Federal Reserve banks; '
V, waiver of navigation and inspection laws;
VI, power to requisition;
VII, political activity;
IX, free postage for members of armed forces;
XI, acceptance of conditional gifts to further the war program; and
XIV, utili zation of vital v/ar information.
The bill amends Title III so as to provide for judicial review of suspen¬
sion orders by the U. S. district court for the district in which the peti¬
tioner has his principal place of business*
The bill does not extend the following titles of the Act:
VIII, protection of war industries and protection of resources subject to
forest fire hazards;
X, naturalization of members of the armed forces;
XII, coinage of 5"cent pieces;
XIII, inspection and audit of war contractors.
SENATE
3. ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY. Sen. Capper, Kans., inserted telegrams from the South¬
western Interstate Coal Operators Assn, and the United I^ine Workers of Kansas
and' Missouri opposing the proposed St. Lav/rence waterway project (p. 8661).
Sen. Aiken, Vt., discussed Cordell Hull’s v;ork on behalf of the St.
Lawrence vraterv/ay (pp. S6S3-6) . ■ ' ■ ^
4. VETERANS; PERSONNEL. Passed as reported H. R. ' 53S6, to change’vth'e period from
4o days to 90 days during which a veteran may make application 'if or the job
which he held at the time of his induction; and to' provide- that' hospital! zed
for not more than a year following his discharge, th.e 90“day time ;phall not
begin to run until the termination of his hospitalization (p. S68S).
5. BANKING AND CURRENCY. Passed as reported S. 195^} Va extend until Dec.^ 31*
1945, the act authorizing the use for war purposes 'of. Government -awned '-silver
(pp. 8682-3) • ' '
6. EDUCATION BROADCASTS. Interstate Commerce Committee reported with an amendment
S. I95T» amend the Communications Act of 1'93^ so -as to -prohibit interference
with the broadcasting of noncommercial cultural or educational ‘programs (S.
Kept. 1235) Cp. 8661).
7. FLOOD CONTROL. ‘Continued debate on H. R. 4485, the flood-control bill (pp. ;
8664-82, 8686-8). ■
Agreed to the ‘committee amendment -authorizing appropriation of funds to
begin the development of the Missouri River basin by the War and Interior De¬
partments (pp. 8676-"/) ♦
Agreed to amendments by Sen, O'Mahoney, Wyo,, to limit the use of waters
for navigation (p. 867O), to provide for specific congressional approval, of
Interior projects if objected to by War or a State (pp. 8671-2), and to provide
for use of War Department projects for irrigation (pp. 8675”6).
-3-
A^^reed to a compromise amendjnent regarding projects in the New England
States (pp. S66U-7O, S679“81). _
Discussed and referred to the Irrigation and Reclamation Committee the
0*Mahoney amendments to permit War Department to contract for water storage and
to provide for use of War Department projects for irrigation under certain
conditions (pp» 8672-4). i
SaNSPORTATION; LAND GRANTS. Reported (Nov. 28) with amendments H. R. 4l84, to
r^eal land-grant rates on military and naval traffic (S. Rept.^1208).
The committee did not adopt the proposed amendment to require the rail¬
roads to give up their grant lands before receiving full commercial rates.
Under the House bill the repeal of land-grant rates would be effective ^90
days after enactment of the bill. The Senate committee chafed this provision
so as to make the repeal effective under the following conditions: GAD would
keep records of the differences in full-commercial and land-grant rates paid by
Government agencies. When these differences exceed $68,272,770 (the value of
the grant lands now owned or claimed by the carriers), this amount would be set
up as a ^veterans* farm fund," to be administered by the Interior Department.
The fund would be used for purchase and improvement of lands on^ reclamation
projects to be divided into farms for sale to veterans and for irrigation pro
jects. The names of qualified veterans would be furnished to Interior by the
Veterans’ Administration under regulations approved by the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture.
BILLS INTRODUCED
34ALL BUSINESS. By Rep. Celler, N. Y., H. R. 55^9» amend Public Law 603,
77th Cong., the so-called Small Business Act. To Banking and Currency Com¬
mittee. (p. 8713*)
EORESTRY. By Rep. Patton, Tex., H. R. 55^1, to transfer certain land in
Nacogdoches County, Tex., to the Forest 'Service. To Agriculture Committee.
(p. 8713-)
FOREIGN TRADE. By Sen. Brewster, Maine, S. Res. 34l, directing- the ^U. S.
Tariff Commission to examine the dutiable items, the imports of which in 1939
were valued at over $100,000.,' and to report: (l), the quantity and laLue of U.S.
production in 1939 and the ratio of imports to domestic cons^ption in that
year; (2) the probable imports if the 1939 dutfos Were to (a) remain in effec ,
(b) be reduced by 50 percent, and (c) be increased by 50 percent. To Finance
Committee, (p. 8662.)
^ ITEJ'4S IN APPENDIX
. PRICE CONTROL. Extension of remarks of Rep. Bennett, Mo., criticizing ^
"little or no concern" about the price of lespedeza seed and stating. The
Government called upon the farmer to increase their production of lespedeza,
and now
it has left them holding the sack" (p. A4904).
3. ST. LA’.'vllENCE WATERWAY. Extension of remarks of Rep. Pittenger, Minn., favor
ing the St. Lavrrence Waterway (p. a4904) .
4. education. Rep. Outland, Calif., inserted the National^ Commission^ for the
Djffensc of Democracy Through Education's statement claiming that America
Trails Britain in Education Reform" (pp. A4905-6) .
78th congress
2d Session
H. R. 4485
IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES
No\'ember 29 (legislative day, No^’ember 21), 1944
Ordered to be printed
AMENDMENT
Proposed Mr. Murray to the bill (H. P. 4485) aiitliorizing
the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors
for flood control, and for other purposes, viz :
1 At the end of section 2, line 19, page 2, of the bill, as
2 reported out by the Senate Committee on Commerce, insert
3 the following: '^Provided, That all functions, powers, duties,
4 and projects of the Secretary of War, the Chief of Engineers,
5 and the Corps of Engineers Avith respect to the examination,
6 survey, construction, operation, and maintenance of western
7 water conservation reservoirs owned or controlled by the
8 Federal Government, or with respect to any works of im-
9 provement appurtenant to such reservoirs, whether hereto-
11-29-44 - C
2
1 fore, herein, or hereafter authorized for examination, survey,
2 construction, operation, or maintenance, are hereby trans-
3 ferreci to the Secretary of the Interior and shall be adminis-
4 tered, under his direction and supervision, by the Bureau of
5 Eeclamation in the Department of the Interior. The term
6 Western water conservation reservoirs’ as used in this section
7 shall he deemed to include all reservoirs which are used, or
8 capable of being used, in whole or in part for the conservation,
9 storage, or detention of water, including flood control, or for
10 the reclamation of arid or semiarid lands, and which are
11 located in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
I
12 Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
13 Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
14 Washington, and Wyoming: Provided further, That all rec-
15 ords and property (including office equipment, machinerjq
16 supphes, facilities, contracts, and assets of every kind, but
17 excluding property needed in the conduct of mihtary opera-
18 tions) used primarily in the administration of any such func-
19 tions, powers, duties, and projects shall be transferred to the
20 Department of the Interior for use in connection with the
21 administration of said functions, powers, duties, and projects :
22 Provided further, That all civilian personnel engaged pri-
23 marily in the administration of any such functions, powers,
21 duties, and projects shall be transferred to the Department of
2b the Interior for use in connection with the administration of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
A
such functions, powers, duties, and projects. Any of the
civihan personnel transferred under this section who are
found by the Secretary of the Interior to be in excess of
the personnel necessary for efficient administration of the
activities covered by this section shall be retransferred under
existing law to other positions in the Government service or
shall be separated from the service. Any person whose
employment is terminated on account of a reduction of per¬
sonnel resulting from the operation of this order shall, for a
period of one year from the date of such termination of
emplo^T-ment, be given preference, if qualified, whenever an
appointment is made in the executive branch of the Govern¬
ment: Provided further, That so much of the unexpended
balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, or other
funds heretofore or hereafter made available for use in the
t
administration of any of the functions, powers, duties, and
projects transferred by this section (including appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, or other funds available for general
departmental or staff services used in the administration of
any such activity) as shaU be determined, upon the basis of
the pertinent legislative, budgetary, and administrative appor¬
tionments, to be properly subject to utilization in the adminis¬
tration of such functions, powers, duties, or projects shall be
transferred to the Department of the Interior for use in con¬
nection with the administration of the functions, powers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
duties, and projects transferred by this section. The moneys
so transferred may include amounts to provide for the licpiida-
tion of obligations incurred against such appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, or other funds prior to the transfer.
No moneys transfeiTed under this provision shall be expended
for purposes other than those for which such moneys were
appropriated or otherwise originally made available, except
to the extent to which their expenditure for other purposes
may be authorized by law: Provided further, That nothing
contained in this section shall impair the validity of any out¬
standing obligations or contracts of the United States of
America or of any department, establishment, or agency
thereof : Provided further, That all rules, regulations, orders,
permits, hcenses, privileges, or other like matters made,
issued, or granted in pursuance of, or with respect to, any
function, power, dut}^, or*project transferred by this section
which are in effect at the time of such transfer shall continue
in effect to the same extent as if such transfer had not oc-
cun’ed until modified, superseded, or repealed: Provided
further. That the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall
take such action as may be necessary or appropriate for the
effectuation of the transfers provided for herein, and shall
prescribe the date or dates on which such transfers shall
become effective. His determinations with respect to the
5
1 proper allocation of the records, property, personnel, and
2 funds referred to in said sections shall, when approved by
3 the President, be final for the purposes of this Act.”
<
CD
K
P3
to
CO
O
CU QTQ
►1 ^
fD cc
P- S;
<-1- <
© ©
w -
n. &!
3 O
S' <
fB [r
P- I
CD
»
to
CO
cr* ^
O 2.
O M
§ g-
1^ o
2-^
P 2 ^
!?
6
o
Cfi
^D
C"
o
O
►-i
h- '•
h-'
©
O
<<
(©
»-J
o
o
CD
CO
P
CO
P
p
p
p .
(Tf-
P
O
•-s
o
c/3
tr*
P
rt“
KJ •
O
P
cr
o
o
•-j
CO
Hb
)-b
O
CD
C
»-s
1
o ^
hi
P. >-5
*
HS»i
d
w
cd
>
(©
‘. cr
t— ' •
h— «
w
w
>
n
z
a
M
Z
H
U1
02
X
?o
•j^
00
U1
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8663
delegate on the Council of the United
Nations could be empowered by appro¬
priate measures of the Congress to act
in concert with other nations to preserve
the peace, even to the extent of using
such forces as are made available for
this purpose by the Congress to repel
aggression. This, he believes, can be
done without the need of seeking spe¬
cific Congressional approval in each
case when the peace is threatened. I
commend to the attention of the Senate
his thoughtful and persuasive letter.
There being no objection, the letter
and editorial were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows;
[Prom the New York Times of October 2,
1944]
Promptness a Factor — Possible Use of Force
To Prevent Aggression Not Debatable
To the Editor of the New York Times:
The text of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement
discloses that our armed forces may be used
in two ways to preserve world peace. A con¬
tingent of our air forces is to be kept avail¬
able for combined International action when
urgent and speedy military measures become
necessary. The circumstances under which
other types of armed forces are to be em¬
ployed will be defined in separate compacts
which are still to be negotiated and which
when concluded are to be ratified in accord¬
ance with the constitutional processes of the
various United Nations. Apparently it is not
contemplated that the approval of Congress
will be sought in advance either of the use of
our air contingent or other forces to prevent
aggression.
The suggestion has been made in public
discussions of the problems of international
security that the Constitution does not per¬
mit our armed forced to be used without prior
congressional approval. According to this
view, congressional consent must be spught in
each Instance before resort is had to armed
action.
constitutional question
Is this a sound construction of the Federal
Constitution? Or, stated differently, is it
within the constitutional competence of our
Government to make the commitments con¬
cerning our armed forces which are embodied
in or contemplated by the Dumbarton Oaks
pact?
As is true of most great constitutional
Issues, our organic charter provides no direct
answer to these questions.
A declaration of war requires congressional
action. But the use of force is not always
the equivalent of war. There are numerous
Instances in our history of the use of force by
the Executive in the protection of our na¬
tional interests which have never been re¬
garded as acts of war and which were not
preceded by any congressional declaration or
specific authorization. The principal exam¬
ples are listed in a printed pamphlet pre¬
pared by the Solicitor of the State Depart¬
ment, entitled “Right to Protect Citizens in
Foreign Countries by Landing Forces,” and
published by the Government Printing Office.
Forces have been sent to foreign lands to
protect the lives and property of American
citizens, to safeguard our shipping from
piracy, to punish the nationals of other coun¬
tries for crimes, injuries, and insults against
American citizens. The outstanding inci¬
dents were the landing of troops in China
during the Boxer revolt, the naval excursions
into the far Pacific in the nineteenth cen¬
tury, and the landing of marines in Mexico,
Haiti, Nicaragua, and other Central American
countries.
HIGH COURT statement
One of the most famous occasions for the
display of force is described by the Supreme
Court in In re N eagle (135 U. S. 1, 64) as
follows;
“One of the most remarkable episodes in
the history of our foreign relations, and which
has become an attractive historical incident,
is the case of Martin Koszta, a native of
Hungary, who, though not fully a naturalized
citizen of the United States, had in due form
of law made his declaration of intention to
become a citizen.
“While in Smyrna he was seized by com¬
mand of the Austrian consul general at that
place, and carried on board the Hussar, an
Austrian vessel, where he was held in close
confinement. Captain Ingraham, in com¬
mand of the American sloop of war St. Louis,
arriving in port at that critical period, and
ascertaining that Koszta had with him his
naturalization papers, demanded his surren¬
der to him, and was compelled to train his
guns upon the Austrian vessel before his
demands were complied with. It was, how¬
ever, to prevent bloodshed, agreed that
Koszta should be placed in the hands of the
French consul subject to the result of diplo¬
matic negotiations between Austria and the
United States.”
PUBLIC APPROVED
“The celebrated correspondence between
Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, and Chevalier
Hulsemann, the Austrian Minister at Wash¬
ington, which arose out of this affair, and
resulted in the release and restoration to lib¬
erty of Koszta, attracted a great deal of pub¬
lic attention, and the position assumed by
Mr. Marcy met the approval of the country
and of Congress, who voted a gold medal to
Captain Ingraham for his conduct in the
affair. Upon what act of Congress then exist¬
ing can anyone lay his finger in support of
the action of our Government in this mat¬
ter?"
It would be idle to deny that the use of
force may lead to war. This is equally true,
though perhaps to a lesser extent, of other
aspects of the conduct of our foreign rela¬
tions, which the Constitution entrusts ex¬
clusively to the Executive.
“The President,” stated Chief Justice
Marshall, “is the sole organ of the Nation in
its external relations, and its sole representa¬
tive with foreign nations.” According to
Justice Sutherland in U. S. v. Curtiss-W right
Corporation (299 U. S. 304, 318) , "As a member
of the family of nations, the right and power
of the United States [in the field of foreign
relations] are equal to the right and power of
the other members of the international fam¬
ily. Otherwise the United States is not com¬
pletely sovereign.” The same idea was ex¬
pressed by the Supreme Court in Burnet v.
Brooks, (288 U. S. 378, 396), where it said,
"As a Nation with all the attributes of soy-
ereignty, the United States is vested with all
the powers of government necessary to main¬
tain an effective control of international re¬
lations.”
Our Government, like other governments,
has found it necessary In the past to resort
to force in its dealings with other nations.
If this could be done consonant with the
provisions of our Constitution, certainly
there should be no constitutional difficulty
In our acting hereafter in concert with other
peace-loving nations. Under the settled
construction put upon the Constitution
throughout our entire history, the Executive
may use force in the protection of our na¬
tional Interests without congressional au¬
thorization, either general or specific.
How much clearer is It that this may be
done pursuant to international arrangements
duly ratified by Congress. The commitment
for the use of air power is In the Dumbarton
Oaks compact which will be submitted to
Congress. The agreements concerning other
forces will be subject to ratification by the
Senate. Under the decision of the Supreme
Court in U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
there can be no doubt that Congress, by
ratification of these general arrangements,
may supplement the President’s “plenary”
authority over foreign affairs with ample
power to join with other powers in all neces¬
sary measures to curb aggression.
POWER for congress
The fullest participation of Congress in
preserving peace is manifestly to be desired.
No Executive is likely to authorize the use of
force without the fullest consultation with
Congress: the action he would take on his
own initiative would be limited. Where
police measures fall, it will always be up to
the Congress to determine whether war itself
should be declared.
Our experience in two wars teaches that
aggression can only be prevented if the inter¬
national commujjity is able to move promptly.
If our participation in collective measures is
to be debated in each instance in Congress
and if the parliaments of other United Na¬
tions are similarly to pass upon the extent
of their participation, costly delays will en¬
sue. Hitler could have been stopped long
before 1939 with a minimum cost of human
lives had the world been organized to move
swiftly against aggression. Paralyzing de¬
bates by the democracies provide the aggres¬
sors with the head start which makes their
ultimate destruction so difficult and costly.
It has been suggested that a distinction
be drawn between the use of force in this
hemisphere and its use elsewhere. Members
of Congress who are most jealous of congres¬
sional prerogatives recognize the need for
speedy action in the western world and are
not insistent on advance congressional ap¬
proval when force is needed in our own back
yard. Constitutionally, however, there Is no
basis for distinction between action in this
part of the world and elsewhere. And we
must always keep in the forefront of our
minds that the two world wars of the
twentieth century originated in Europe and
Asia. If there is to be no repetition of the
invasion of Belgium. Manchuria, and Poland,
we must join our fellow nations willingly and
without hampering reservations in keeping
the peace. Nothing in the Federal Constitu¬
tion stands in the way of our assuming our
full share of responsibility.
Let all these difficult questions of policy
be debated on their merits. The Injection of
constitutional objections of superficial plausi¬
bility but of dubious validity will only serve
to confuse the issues.
Milton Handler.
New York, October 17, 1944.
[From the New York Times of October 23,
1944.]
The President’s Proposal
President Rposevelt used his speech before
the Foreign Policy Association on Saturday
evening to add to the blueprints of Dumbar¬
ton Oaks a recomendation of very great im¬
portance. This was his proposal that the
American representative on the council of
the new league of the United Nations “be
empowered in advance by the people them¬
selves, by constitutional means through their
representatives in Congress, with authority
to act.” By this he clearly means authority
for the American representative to determine
on his own right, and without further specific
reference of the question in each instance
to Congress, whether such American forces
as have been made available for this pur¬
pose — our quota of an International air force,
for example — shall be used, along with the
forces supplied by other members of the
United Nations, to prevent or restrain ag¬
gression.
The President backed this proposal with
an argument which may seem to be over¬
simplified but which does, after all, go to
the heart of the problem. A policeman, he
said, would not be a very effective police¬
man if, when he saw a felon breaking into
8661
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 29
a house, he had to go to the town hall and
call a town meeting to Issue a warrant be¬
fore the felon could be arrested. “If we
do not catch the international felon when we
have our hands on him, if we let him gert
away with his loot because the town council
has not passed an ordinance authorizing his
arrest, then we are not doing our share to
prevent another world war. I think, and I
have had some experience, that the people
of this Nation want their Government to
work, they want their Government to act,
and not merely talk, whenever and wher¬
ever there is a threat to peace.”
It is important to keep in mind the precise
words in which the President advanced his
proposal. He wishes the American represent¬
ative on the council to be civen his authority
“by the people themselv^ by constitutional
means through their representatives in Con¬
gress.” It is clear that he Intends to pro¬
pose, concretely, a method of procedure which
he believes will be in accordance with the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
This could be done in various ways: By Sen¬
atorial ratification of a treaty, or by making
the American representative on the council
a delegate of Congress as well as of the
President , through one of several devices.
Fundamentally, we believe, there are no
constitutional obstacles to the perfection of
a plan which would sanction the use of
American force in this manner. For while
the Constitution does require Congressional
action for a declaration of war, the use of
force is not always the equivalent of war^
and its use in this case would be for the
purpose of preventing war. As Professor
Handler of the Columbia Law School wrote
yesterday on this page:
“Our Government, like other Governments,
has found it necessary in the past to resort
to force in its dealing with other nations.
If this could be done consonant with the
provisions of our Constitution, certainly
there should be no constitutional difficulty
in our acting hereafter in concert with peace-
loving nations. Under the settled construc¬
tion put upon the Constitution throughout
our entire history, the Executive may use
force in the protection of our national in¬
terests without congressional authorization,
either general or specific. How much clearer
is it that this may be done pursuant to
international arrangements duly ratified by
Congress.”
We believe that a plan to embody the
President’s proposal can be developed which
will rest on sound constitutional grounds,
and we believe that from the point of view
of public policy the case for the adoption of
such a plan is very strong. Surely, the best
hope of averting the two great wars in
Europe and Asia, in which American blood
and treasure must now be poured out lavish¬
ly, would have been to confront Germany and
Japan with the certainty that their first ag¬
gression would be met immediately by con¬
sultation which could bring coalition action.
It is the factor of certainty, quite as much
as the factor of promptness, that is im¬
portant. For while the American represent¬
ative on the council might not vote in all
cases to approve the use of force (he would
certainly not do so unless he had evidence
that American opinion was behind him),
the fact remains that any potential aggressor
vmuld know henceforth that there were
policemen in the world who had power to
arrest felons. In the deterrent influence
of this knowledge, and the maintenance by
the peace-loving nations of adequate armed
forces, lie real hope that out of the present
war there may come a long period of peace.
The President has made a courageous and
constructive proposal which we hope will
have the prompt support of Mr. Dewey. For
there is an American interest here which
transcends party lines and will outlast elec¬
tion campaigns. We shall need, on Novem¬
ber 8, and from that point forward, all the
bipartisan support that can be mustered
for the plan that seems most certain to
avert the tragedy and the waste and the
heartbreak of another war.
CONFIRMATION OF THE NOMINATION OP
COMMISSIONER GUY E. MASON
Mr. BILBO. Mr. President, in order to
give further assurance to my colleagues
who voted for the confirmation of the
nomination of Mr. Mason and to clear
any doubt in the minds of my brethren
who saw fit to vote against confirmation,
I wish to read into the Record a tele¬
gram which it was intended should have
been read yesterday, but it came too late.
The telegram is as follows;
Washington. D. C., November 28, 1944.
Senator Theodore Bilbo,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.:
We have read in this morning’s press of
the hospital charges, and on the basis of
thorough personal investigation of all the
municipal hospitals, including Gallinger, and
having observed the performance with which
Commissioner Mason has acted upon all prac¬
tical suggestions for Improvement, we
heartily commend Commissioner Mason for
carrying out his duties and warmly endorse
his reappointment.
The following members of the board of
visitors committee:
Mrs. C. Ashmead Fuller, i.„abbi Norman
Gerstenfeld, Rev. E. L. Harrison,
Mrs. Willi.': W. Jones, Rev. Edward
G. Latch, Mrs. Harold N. Marsh,
Mrs. Stanley Reed, and Rudolph
Berger.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, may I
inquire what is the board of visitors and
who constitute it?
Mr. BILBO. It is a volunteer organ¬
ization in the District of Columbia and
is approved by the Board of District
Commissioners.
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The question
is on agreeing to the amendment pro¬
posed by the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O’Mahoney] for himself and other
Senators, striking out lines 3 to 7 on
page 10 of the bill and inserting in lieu
thereof certain words.
Mr. AUSTIN obtained the floor.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the Sen¬
ator from Vermont yield to me to make a
point of no quorum?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will call the roll..
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Connally
Hawkes
Austin
Cordon
Hayden
Bailey
Danaher
Hill
Bankhead
Davis
Holman
Bilbo
Downey
Jenner
Brewster
Ellender
Johnson, Calif.
Brooks
Ferguson
Johnson, Colo.
Buck
George
Kilgore
Burton
Gerry
Langer
Bushfield
Gillette
Lucas
Butler
Green
McClellan
Byrd
Guffey
McFarland
Capper
Gurney
McKellar
Caraway
Hall
Maloney
Clark, Mo.
Hatch
Maybantt
Mead
Mllllkln
Murray
Nye
O’Daniel
O’Mahoney
Overton
Radcllffe
Reed
Revercomb
Reynolds
Robertson
Russell
Shlpstead
Stewart
Taft
Thomas, Idaho
Thomas, Okla.
Thomas, Utah
Tunnell
Vandenberg
Wagner
Wallgren
Walsh, Mass.
Walsh, N. J.
Weeks
Wheeler
Wherry
White
Wiley
Willis
Mr. WHITE. I announce the absence
of the senior Senator from Wisconsin
[Mr. La Follette] on official business of
the Senate.
Mr. HILL. I announce that the Sena¬
tor from Virginia [Mr. Glass] is absent
from the Senate because of illness.
The Senators from Nevada [Mr. Mc-
Carran and Mr. Scrugham] and the Sena¬
tor from Utah [Mr. Murdock] are de¬
tained on official business for the Senate.
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Chandler] is absent attending the
funeral of a friend.
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Pepper]
is absent on important public business.
The Senator from Florida [Mr.
Andrews], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. Eastland], the Senator from Mis¬
souri [Mr. Truman], the Senator from
-Maryland [Mr. Tydings], and the Sena¬
tor from Idaho [Mr. Clark] are neces¬
sarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
Barkley] and the Senator from New
Mexico [Mr. Chavez] are unavoidably de¬
tained.
Mr. WHERRY. The following Sena¬
tors are necessarily absent:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
Ball], the Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. Bridges], the Senator from Okla¬
homa [Mr. Moore], the Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. Tobey], and the
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Wilson].
The VICE PRESIDENT. Seventy-six
Senators have answ’ered to their names.
A quorum is present.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, when the
Senate recessed I was discussing the sub¬
ject whether the amendment now pend¬
ing would stop the whole program, as
claimed by the distinguished Senator
from Connecticut, or whether it would
wipe out all projects planned, as claimed
by the distinguished Senator from Con¬
necticut. I was undertaking to point
out that it would not and that, as a mat¬
ter of fact, the drainage area in square
miles comprehended by the postpone¬
ment in the amendment is only 436
square miles out of a total drainage in¬
volved in the 20 projects of 2,752 square
miles. In other words, five-sixths of the
project could go forward. Only one-
sixth of it would be suspended, and for
merely a long enough time to have the
opportunity given to the representatives
of the State of Vermont to present
their claim with respect to the val¬
leys involved — and there are only 4 of
them, 4 out of 10 — so that they could
be considered by the engineers, and per¬
haps assented to and agreements made,
without a postponement of the projects
further than that involved in a mere
conversation between the engineers and
the representatives of the State of Ver¬
mont. That would not bring about seri¬
ous delay; indeed, it should cause no
delay at all, for, as a matter of fact, the
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 8665
report of the Army engineers which is
referred to in the authority given by the
bill contemplated exactly such a possi¬
bility of delay. I find on page 4 of the
report of the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, contained in House
Document No. 724 the following, bearing
upon that subject:
There are Indications that when the studies
now underway are completed, a larger num¬
ber of reservoirs than contemplated under
the approved plan may be found desirable.
It has also been found that some of the sites
that will be used for construction of the 20
reservoirs under the approved plan, as it may
be modified, have potentialities either for
the future development of power or for the
provision of additional storage for stream-
flow regulation for the benefit of downstream
power plants.
And on page 5 of the same report there
Is found the following:
The Board notes that construction of 20
reservoirs under the approved plan probably
would extend over a period of years as con¬
tinuing authorizations, and appropriations
for that plan are made by Congress. As
construction proceeds changes in the ap¬
proved plan, beyond those now considered
advisable, may become desirable.
In other words, Vermont is merely car¬
rying out what was contemplated by the
Board of Engineers in respect to this de¬
velopment, and specifically pointing out
only a few out of the 20 — that is, 4 out
of the 20 — valleys to be reconsidered.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I un¬
derstand the Senator from Vermont to
state that the objection on his part is
largely related, in fact entirely related,
to one project.
Mr. AUSTIN. Not entirely, but it is
largely related to one.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Would
the Senator from Vermont be willing to
accept in the nature of a compromise the
language in the bill subject to a limita¬
tion that the one project the Senator is
referring to should suspended for 6
months in order to enable a reinvestiga¬
tion to be made?
Mr, AUSTIN. I could not enter into
an agreement with respect to a compro¬
mise on my own authority alone. The
State of Vermont has appointed a water
conservation board which is represented
here, and which is now, I understand, in
conference with the distinguished col¬
league of the Senator who has asked this
question, and they have under considera¬
tion a possible compromise relating to
the watershed of the West River which
might, if accepted, clear the question en¬
tirely. That matter may come to a deci¬
sion while I am talking here, or within a
short time.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
proposal which I suggest to the Senator
would provide for a review of this one
project, and all parties would be given a
chance to be heard, and then if modifica¬
tions or changes should be desired, they
could be made. It would at least permit
further study and inquiry with respect to
that one project.
Mr. AUSTIN. I understand, and the
suggestion made by the Senator from
Massachusetts is a perfectly laudable one,
and one of which I approve. If a limita¬
tion of time were imposed the question
would arise, of course, if action could be
taken within the time limitation. That
is something I do not know. That is for
technicians to determine.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I have
not talked with my colleagues from Con¬
necticut and Massachusetts about this
matter, but I am wondering if it is not
possible to permit projects with respect
to which authorizations already exist, as
well as projects authorized in this bill, to
proceed, subject to review of the one
project under discussion.
Mr. AUSTIN. I think that is doubtful,
in view of the fact that question was
raised with respect to other small val¬
leys. There is a question raised by the
committee amendment with relation to
the use of these dams for power which
could be resolved very easily by having it
• made possible for the representatives of
the States and of the Federal Govern¬
ment to consider each valley on its merits
with reference to the use of the water for
power.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. May
I ask the Senator if the present law and
the plan outlined in the pending meas¬
ure permit the use of these dams in Ver¬
mont for generating power.
Mr. AUSTIN. Well, in this way, that
it is possible that it could be done.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. There
is a feeling, I judge, on the part of some
of the representatives of the State of
Vermont that at least some of the dams,
not all of them, should not be permitted
to generate power. Is that true?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. The matter does
not really turn on the question of power
at all. It turns on other points.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. But
the question rises with respect to the
building of dams of a type that might
be used for generating power.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; that is the point;
the type of dams which might create
burdens on the community.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I can¬
not conceive of the construction of a
type of dam which generates power that
would be different from other dams,
except in the matter of cost and in the
matter of height.
Mr. AUSTIN. I am informed by the
evidence that such a dam does impose a
wholly different burden on the valley.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
burden on the valley is the fiooding of
the valley, and that depends, does it not,
on the height of the dam?
Mr. AUSTIN. That is not the only
burden. The burden is in the use also,
by drawing down and exposing the soil
that has been so full of water and creat¬
ing an obnoxious situation. We have to
regard the interests of Vermont in main¬
taining its resource of recreation as a
valuable asset of the State. There is
another question involved, namely, that
of alluvial land which can be used for
agriculture. We want to be heard on
those two points when the question of
construction of a dam that is suitable
for generating power comes up with
respect to a certain valley.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Of
course, that has already been consid¬
ered. But does the Senator think there
ought to be further hearings?
Mr. AUSTIN. No, Mr. President; it
has not been considered by the State.
It has not been considered in respect to
the matter in question.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Has
not all the evidence which the State de¬
sires to produce been presented to the
Army engineers and also to the Commit¬
tees on Commerce of both the House
and the Senate?
Mr. AUSTIN. No. That is what we
are after. We are after the same thing
that the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Commerce was after and
obtained from the Senate in his amend¬
ment, which appears in the Record at
page 8352. I read as follows;
Mr. Bailey. Mr. President, the amend¬
ment which I offered, and which the com-
'mittee unanimously approved, reads as fol¬
lows: ,
“On page 12, after line 14, strike out lines
15 to 23, Inclusive, under the title ‘Yadkln-
Pee Dee River Basin’ and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
“ ‘The general plan for the comprehensive
development of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin for flood control, and other purposes,
recommended by the Chief of Engineers in
House Document 652, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, is hereby stricken from
the bill and is referred to the Committee on
Commerce to the end that hearings may be
had from the people concerned and with In¬
structions to report back to the Senate
within 6 months.’ ’’
That amendment was supported by
claims which are so very much like the
claims which the committee heard from
the inhabitants of the West River Val¬
ley, that it seems strange that there
should be a conflict here over a similar
request, for the effect of our amendment
is substantially the same as the effect of
the amendment which has already been
accepted with respect to the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin,
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Is
there not a material difference between
the Senator’s amendment and the
amendment he has just read?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; there is. But it
is on another point, and that is that we
seek by this amendment to meet the
claim of delay which would be involved
if we were to strike out the whole Con¬
necticut River basin and try to narrow
this effort by Vermont down to a small
part of the Connecticut River basin, that
part which is in Vermont, and point out
that there is authorized improvement on
the West River, although there should
be no modification of it without an op¬
portunity to be heard.
I call attention to the fact that the
present location of the Williamsville site
dam is a modification. At one time when
we considered this project it was to be
located in the town of Dummerston,
which is below the present location. Now
it has gone upstream to a different loca¬
tion, and I am informed that still an¬
other location, with which I am not fa¬
miliar, has been considered by the engi¬
neers. Those are regarded as modifica¬
tions within that section of the law which
reads “with such further modifications
as may be found justifiable in the dis-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 29
8666
cretion of the Secretary of War and of
the Chief of Engineers.”
We do not want that to take place
again without our knowledge or v/ithout
our having an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. There is this differ¬
ence between the Yadkin-Pee Dee and
the Connecticut River Basin: In the first
place, I accepted the amendment which
was presented by the Senator from North
Carolina IMr. Bailey] because the Yad¬
kin-Pee Dee affects only one State,
namely, the State of North Carolina. On
the other hand, the Connecticut River
Basin affects three States, and the res¬
ervoirs in the State of Vermont, while
being located exclusively in the State
of Vermont, would affect the flow of the
Connecticut River through Massachu¬
setts and Connecticut, and therefore
three States are involved. If the Sena¬
tors from the three States had agreed on
some compromise arrangement, I think
I would gladly have accepted it, so far
as I could accept an amendment.
The other difference is that the Yad¬
kin-Pee Dee report was submitted at the
beginning of the hearings by the Senate
Committee on Commerce, and the point
was made that there was no opportunity
on the part of the local people to have
been so advised as to the project that
they could understand it and arrive at
a conclusion as to whether they desired
it or not. Therefore they had been de¬
nied an opportunity to be heard. On
the other hand, the Connecticut River
Basin contemplated improvement has
been before the Congress for a number
of years. I believe surveys were made
in 1936, and reports in 1936 and 1937.
There was an act of Congress in 1938,
and another act of Congress in 1941.
The present law is embodied in the act of
1941.
If I may proceed a little further, the
Question arose in the House, as I under¬
stand, in opposition to the Williamsville
site dam. It was desired that it should
be made a low dam, that is, one which
would be used solely for the purpose of
flood protection, and not a high dam
which could be used for purposes of
power. At least, when the bill came over
from the House, there v/as a provision
in it that the Williamsville site dam
should be a low dam.
Those are the main differences be¬
tween the two situations. Of course, I
cannot consent to any suggestion unless
it meets with the approval of the Sen¬
ators representing the States affected.
That is the main consideration.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. We
appreciate the Senator’s explanation.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. I should like to point
out that the situation has changed so
rapidly, and so many different amend¬
ments have been offered or corrected,
that yesterday’s statement on the floor
sounds rather foolish today.
I should like to reiterate that I am
anxious to cooperate with the Senators
from Vermont. I rose some time ago to
comment upon a statement made by the
distinguished Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Austin], who has the floor. Per¬
haps it is a little late now to point out
that the delay which he asks, and which
he mentioned a little earlier, is avail¬
able.
This bill deals with post-war projects.
Those projects will not be undertaken
until the war is over. The law already
provides that the Army engineers have
the right to modify their plans. The
distinguished Senator from Vermont was
somewhat exercised a few days ago
about the language in the law dealing
with modification, and he then gave no¬
tice to the Senate that he intended to
move to strike out that language^ in the
law. Apparently that plan ha*s been
abandoned, although I suspect it may
be revived.
Mr. AUSTIN. I think the Senator
ought to know that it has not been
abandoned, and that it is really in the
amendment now under consideration.
Mr. MALONEY. Let me point out
that if all the Senator wants is delay in
order to review the matter, he has all
the time between now and the end of
the war. The Army engineers are em¬
powered to make modifications. The
Army engineers are recognized as men
who are always anxious to cooperate.
I have never known them to be arbi¬
trary. So if all the Senator wants is
review, and a delay to bring about the
review, it is already available to him.
I am hopeful that those now engaged
in conference, representatives from the
State of Massachusetts and officials from
the State of Vermont, will come to us
soon with an agreement which we can all
accept; but I wish. to point out that the
language in this amendment has been
changed from day to day, and now I am
informed by the Senator that his amend¬
ment, although it does not say so in
ABC language, makes provision for
striking out language in existing law. I
do not believe that is necessary.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield to my colleague.
Mr. AIKEN. I should like to point out
two things. First, in addition to the
Yadkin-Pee Dee project which was elim¬
inated, and which has been discussed
here, this body has also eliminated other
projects from the bill, notably a dam in
Indiana, which it was contended would
do more damage than would be compen¬
sated for by the benefits derived from it,
and also a dam in West Virginia. They
were both dieted from the bill for
exactly the same reasons which we are
now presenting in asking for the elimi¬
nation of the West River Dam.
Let me also point out a further thing:
The Senator from Connecticut states
that we would have ample time for re¬
view, and that none of these projects can
be started until after the war; but the
language of the bill at the top of page 8
is as follows:
Provided further, That when the existing
critical situation with respect to materials,
equipment, and manpower no longer exists,
and in any event not later than immediately
following the cessation of hostilities In the
present war, the projects herein shall be
initiated as expeditiously and prosecuted as
vigorously as may be consistent with budg¬
etary requirements.
In other words. Instead of being post¬
war projects, it will be required that
these projects start not later than at
the end of the war. So the projects are
very different from being post-war proj¬
ects. They could start tomorrow. I do
not understand that the materials re¬
quired for starting the dams are neces¬
sarily strategic materials. So, Mr. Pres¬
ident, I think we should take into con¬
sideration the fact that the pending
flood-control bill is not a bill for post-war
projects.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I thank
.my colleague.
Now let us consider the claim made
that Vermont should longer endure the
absolute and unqualified authority of
the Secretary of War and the Chief of
Engineers which is contained in the lan¬
guage:
With such further modifications as may be
found justifiable in the discretion of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers.
TTiat language appeared for the first
time in the act of 1941 with reference to
the Connecticut River Basin. Under it a
modification was made without the coop¬
eration or consideration of the State of
Vermont. The location of the dam on
the West River, which is so much dis¬
cussed here, was changed from below
West Dummerston upstream 3 miles to
Williamsville Station.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dow¬
ney in the chair). Does the Senator
from Vermont yield to the Senator from
Connecticut?
Mr. AUSTIN. I will yield in a moment.
Mr. President, that change is regarded
as a modification under the Connecticut
River Basin provision. But there is so
much evidence In the act of 1941 itself
that the word “modification” compre¬
hends substitution of one dam for an¬
other, change of type of dam, change of
height of spillway, that one of the chief
objectives we have is that there shall no
longer exist the arbitrary power of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engi¬
neers, after Congress has acted, to oper¬
ate in these Vermont valleys without con¬
sulting the State of Vermont.
I do not wish to have the Congress vote
an authorization and then later find that
within 6 months the Secretary of War
and the Chief of Engineers have modi¬
fied it by changing the location' to a point
dVz miles upstream or by changing the
type of the dam or by changing the
height of the spillway. That is why
there is written into the amendment the
clause:
Plans, proposals, or reports heretofore au¬
thorized for construction at Cambridgeport,
Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysvllle, in
the Connecticut River Basin, or any modi¬
fication of the comprehensive plan for the
Connecticut River Basin in Vermont hereto¬
fore made under authority of the Flood Con¬
trol Act of June 28, 1938, or heretofore made
under authority of section 3 of the Flood
Control Act approved August 18, 1941, shall
not be carried out until after compliance
with the provisions of paragraph (a) of sec¬
tion — of this act.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
In other words, Mr. President, Ver¬
mont wishes to have the same privi¬
lege — not greater privilege — which is
granted to the great States of the West
and the South and to all other States
except Vermont. That is all we wish to
have. We desire to have a decent chance
to have the wishes, plans, and vital in¬
terests of the State considered in the re¬
port on modifications made by the Army
engineers to the Congress, and we want
a report. We do not want a modifica¬
tion made by the Secretary of War and
the Chief of Engineers which does not
come here for our consideration and the
action of Congress thereon. It is the
blanket authority contained in this
sleeper clause which is the great danger
to us and to all our interests.
Mr. President, all we are asking for,
in plain English, is a chance to be con¬
sulted, not merely in the committees of
Congress, but on the ground, among the
engineers who are at work on these types
of dams and who look over the ground
locally to see whether the proportionate
damage and injury to the people of the
State of Vermont and to the State itself
is so great that a certain type of dam
should be constructed there, instead of
another type, or that a certain location
should be adopted instead of another
location, or that a certain use instead of
another use should be employed at that
place in that valley.
There are 10 Vermont valleys for
which dams have been authorized. Of
the 10 we have picked 4 to which objec¬
tion has arisen. We have said that as to
them there shall be a further considera¬
tion regarding the dams. That request
is a very modest one, and granting it
will not delay the whole project. Five-
sixths of the project can be advanced just
as rapidly as it is possible to find the
manpower with which to do so. This
morning we read in the newspapers that
there is a “supercritical” shortage of 90,-
000 men who are needed to carry on the
war production. Will it cause delay to
require reconsideration of these projects
with reference to all their character¬
istics, and to have a report made to Con¬
gress, in the light of the fact that we
cannot find the manpower needed in
order to go ahead with the projects, even
if we ratify the authorization which was
made in 1941 for these particular proj¬
ects'? The answer is “No.” It will not
delay. In fact, it probably will promote
the construction of the projects.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. I wished to comment
on something the Senator said awhile
ago at a time when he found it incon¬
venient to yield to me. I can quite under¬
stand why he did not wish to yield then,
but I make this reference and place this
emphasis in order that what I am about
to say will be better understood.
It is true, as the Senator has pointed
out, that some tentative modifications
have been made in the location of a dam
on the West River; but I have under¬
stood that, quite contrary to the position
the Senator from Vermont seems to take,
the modification was made for the pur¬
pose of serving the wishes of the people
of Vermont. It is true that the location
originally intended was changed and that
a location a little farther up the river
was selected; but, as I understand the
situation, the purpose of changing the
location to one farther up the river was
to protect Vermont. Fewer persons and
fewer homes would thus be affected.
So I do not wish the Record to show,
without a contradiction, that the change
was made because of an arbitrary atti¬
tude on the part of the engineers, in
which they were ignoring the wishes of
Vermont.
The Senator from Vermont also has
made much of the fact and has earlier,
at least, if not now, entertained the idea
that the modification privileges con¬
tained in the law are peculiar to Ver¬
mont. They are not peculiar to Vermont
or to the Connecticut Valley, Mr. Presi¬
dent, although the Senator from Ver¬
mont has earlier said on the floor of the
Senate that they were. Similar language
is found in connection with other proj¬
ects. It is necessary that the Army en¬
gineers have this modification authority
if they are to comply with desires such
as are here expressed by the Vermont
Senators, namely, to provide a chance to
review, a chance to discuss, a chance to
reexamine. In large part, that is why
that language is in the law, namely, to
permit just the things which the able
senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. Aus¬
tin] now advocates.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I hardly
believe that the distinguished senior
Senator from Connecticut has in mind
what the Senate voted yesterday.
Mr. MALONEY. I confess that I am
becoming confused as the amendments
undergo rapid change.
Mr. AUSTIN. He could not make the
statement he has just made if he clearly
recollected the amendment the Senate
adopted yesterday. I shall take the time
to read the language, because I think it
is well to have the Record contain It.
We took the first paragraph of the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney], which I
shall read, and unanimously agreed
to it.
Mr. MALONEY. Oh, no; not unani¬
mously. I opposed it.
Mr. AUSTIN. Did the Senator op¬
pose it?
Mr. MALONEY. Yes.
Mr. AUSTIN. Does the Senator agree
that it was adopted by the Senate?
Mr. MALONEY. Oh, yes.
Mr. AUSTIN. Very well.
Mr. MALONEY. And I am trying to
adjust myself to the situation as it moves
along.
Mr. AUSTIN. Very well. The provi¬
sion to which I refer reads as follows:
In connection with the exercise of jviris-
diction over the rivers of the Nation through
the construction of works of improvement,
for navigation or flood control, as herein au¬
thorized, it is hereby declared to be the pol¬
icy of the Congress to recognize the inter¬
ests and rights of the States in determining
the development of the watersheds within
their borders and likewise their interests
and rights in water utilization and control,
as herein authorized, to preserve and pro¬
tect to the fullest possible extent estab¬
8667
lished and potential uses, for all purposes,
of the waters of the Nation’s rivers; to fa¬
cilitate the consideration of projects on a
basis of comprehensive and coordinated de¬
velopment; and to limit the authorization
and construction of navigation works to
those in which a substantial benefit to navi¬
gation will be realized therefrom and which
can be operated consistently with appropri¬
ate and economic use of the waters of such
rivers by other users.
I believe I have in my hand an original
copy of the amendment. In the form
agreed to there were slight changes
made which brought out the idea of
cooperation between the Federal Gov¬
ernment and the States.
The following clause, which the Sena¬
tor from Connecticut seems to think
should apply to the Connecticut River
Valley, is opposed to the language which
I have read because it would give abso¬
lute dictatorial power and exclusive dis¬
cretion to the Army engineers. The
provision to which I refer is as follows:
With such further modifications as may be
found justifiable in the discretion of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers.
There is nothing in that clause which
should now apply to Vermont. If that
provision becomes law, Vermont should
have the benefit of the policy which was
agreed to yesterday. Vermont should
not be singled out and discriminated
against when all the other States in the
Union have the benefit of this declara¬
tion of policy,
Mr. President, yesterday the Senate
agreed to the following provision, which
I read from page 2, line 13, of the text
before me, which I believe to be an old
text, but if there is a difference, I shall
be very glad to correct it later :
In conformity with this policy; (a).
That “(a)” is referred to in our
amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. Will the Senator
yield for a correction?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator has said
again that this language is peculiar to
Vermont, and that he only asks for what
other States of the Union have been
given. If he will look on page 4G5, United
States Revised Statutes, Seventy-seventh
Congress, first session, volume 55, part I,
Public Laws, under “Arkansas River
Basin,” he will find the following clause:
With such modifications as may be advis¬
able in the discretion of the Secretary of
War and the Chief of Engineers.
That provision is identical with that
applying to Vermont.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. I believe the provi¬
sion to which reference has been made
will be found in connection with all com¬
prehensive plans relating to river basins.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator is cor¬
rect, and it is impossible to have a com¬
prehensive plan without providing for
such modifications.
Mr. OVERTON. It is not only peculiar
to the Connecticut River Basin but is
peculiar to all reports of the engineers
in connection with similar plans.
No. 165-
2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 29
86G8
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, with that
statement I disagree. I am subject to
error in reading. I contend that if we
examine the act of August 31, 1941, we
will find a reference to 31 projects. The
project in the Connecticut River Basin is
the only one which contains the peculiar
clause to which I have referred. There
are clauses in the provisions relating to
similar projects, but in most cases they
are qualified by a sufficient description
of the project so that the breadth and
scope of the authority does not exist as
it would in the case of the Connecticut
River Basin.
Mr. MALONEY. It exists in the lan¬
guage to which I just referred in con¬
nection with the Arkansas River Valley.
Mr. AUSTIN. If what the Senator
says be true, why should Arkansas and
Vermont be singled out and not be given
the benefit of the policy the Senate
adopted yesterday?
Mr. President, the claim I make is that
we are now in the business of rectifying
the mistakes wliich Congress made in
1938 when it enacted a flood-control bill
at the very end of the session, and which
did not become law until after adjourn¬
ment. My recollection is that Congress
adjourned on June 16 of that year, and
that the 1938 act did not become effec¬
tive until approximately June 22, 1938.
It was crowded through Congress at the
end of the session. It absolutely re¬
versed the action which Congress had
taken in 1936 with reference to the policy
of flood control. I shall discuss that sub¬
ject later if I do not forget it. I now
return to what I was undertaking to
prove.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. In order to throw ad¬
ditional light on the question of modifi¬
cation, I may state that it is rare for an
act itself ever to contain a provision for
modification. The act authorizes cer¬
tain plans for flood control. I am ad¬
vised by the engineers that in the report
submitted by the Chief of Engineers with
respect to all basins there is contained a
provision that the Chief of Engineers
may make such modifications as he be¬
lieves to be proper. Such authority to
made modifications is never abused.
The modifications are only minor ones,
which become necessary as revealed by
the investigation. When a comprehen¬
sive plan is adopted in connection with
the recommendations of the engineers,
the provision that the Chief of Engi¬
neers may make modifications becomes a
part of the law without being so ex¬
pressed in the statute.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I meet
that statement by citing what appears in
the act of 1941.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, wiil the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. In response to the ob¬
servation made by the ‘ distinguished
senior Senator from Vermont, I should
like to read from the act of 1938 in which
In reference to the Ohio River Basin, the
following words are set forth:
with such mocJlflcatlons thereof as In the dis¬
cretion of the Secretary of War and the -Chief
of Engineers may be advisable.
The same language is used in connec¬
tion with the Red River Basin. In that
instance the word “advisable” is used.
In the provision relating to the Connec¬
ticut River Valley the word “justifiable”
is used. It seems to me, Mr. President,
that a precedent exists for this language,
and that by using the word “justifiable”
nstead of “advisable” the language would
be modified at least to the extent stated.
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. CAPPER. I have received from
John B. Gage, mayor of Kansas City, Mo.,
a constructive and helpful statement set¬
ting forth his views as to the pending
flood-control bill. I have great confi¬
dence in the judgment of Mayor Gage,
and urge the Senate to give his statement
serious consideration before the pending
measure reaches a vote. I ask unani¬
mous consent to have printed in the Rec¬
ord at this point the statement to which
I have referred.
There being no objection, the state¬
ment was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The importance of prompt authorization
of flood-control -works in tlie Missouri River
and its tributaries as provided for in the
flood-control bill now before the Senate
cannot be overstated. The plans for the
Army engineers as modified by agreement
with the Bureau of Reclamation to better
serve irrigation needs within the basin are
unquestionably sound from an engineering
standpoint. Carrying them into execution
involves only the recognition of a respon¬
sibility that is traditionally Federal and not
the extension of Federal activity into new
fields. The economic benefits to be derived
are so vast as to defy description or accurate
forecast. The very extent and multiplicity
of these economic benefits provokes con¬
troversies as to their distribution. It will
require years to settle upon and acquire the
precise sites and construct the proposed
works before these benefits materialize. If
authorizations are Immediately given
through passage of the flood-control bill,
there will be more than ample time for Con¬
gress to settle these controversies. The
questions raised do not challenge but, in
fact, further establish the conceded engi¬
neering soundness and economic value of
the proposed works. The Important thing
is to immediately approve the construction
plans 80 that sites may be acquired and de¬
signs and specifications made ready for the
post-war period. Such is the progress that
our armed forces and those of our allies are
making toward victory, that the time for this
preparatory work is all too short.
Here is a program that will more realis¬
tically and effectively than any other plan I
know about harness the tremendous Amer¬
ican technological ability in the field of con¬
struction which has amazed the world and
done so much to win the war to the p-ursuits
of peace. It will turn these great abilities
and energies from the task of destruction
to construction enterprise of the highest
order. All up and down this great valley
once the fear or certainty of recurring flood
is removed, both on the farms and in the
towns, private enterprise will create and
build new improvements, new homes, new
barns; new factories by the thousands will
arise. The public works themselves pro¬
posed by this bill will be but a drop in the
bucket - as compared with the total utiliza¬
tion of manpower and materials which will
develop. New and expanded markets will be
created. If the action of Congress is prompt
and if the agencies of government more ex¬
peditiously act when authorization has been
given, it is entirelj^ possible that these new
demands for manpower and materials will
exist when in the course of the post-war era
the economy of the Nation will have the
greatest need for their stimulating effort.
If this is to occur, however, there can be
no further delay. Let controversies over the
distribution of these vast benefits await
timely and more adequate consideration in
calmer days. Compromise and adjustment
of conflicting rights, always properly a part
of democratic government, can then be had
in a typically American way.
In the proposed O’Mahoney amendment to
the flood control bill there apppears to be
a commitment establishing a priority for
Irrigation water in large amounts to be taken
out of the main stem of the Missouri River
near Fort Peck for lands in the Hudson Bay
drainage area. I refer to -the so-called Souris
River project comprising millions of acres.
Personally, I seriously question the desira¬
bility or propriety at this time of such a
commitment. It is by no means certain that
there will be a surplus of water in the Mis¬
souri River Basin after all beneficial uses
within the basin have been provided for.
Furthermore, the construction of the Souris
River project would not only divert large
amounts of Missouri River water through res¬
ervoir construction and underground drain¬
age into Canada, but would also destroy the
greatest waterfowl refuges and breeding
grounds in the Nation — a project upon which
the Federal Government has expended many
millions of dollars. It would also perma¬
nently commit large volumes of the inci¬
dental hydroelectric power developed at Fort
Peck to irrigation pumping to carry the water
over the divide, and it is at least arguable
that such power should be conserved to pro¬
vide cheap electricity for industrial and other
uses in the Dakota and Montana area. It
would therefore seem most appropriate that
no such commitment to beneficial use outside
the basin, of Missouri River water, be made
at this time. Here is a matter which, like
others that concern beneficial use, should be
left to future solution and determination at a
time when it can be clearly established that
under proper control a surplus of water above
all uses both on the lower and upper river
actually exists.
This is not to challenge the desirability
of an authorization of irrigation works within
the Missouri Basin as proposed by the Recla¬
mation Bureau and approved in the Joint re¬
port of that Bureau and the Army engineers.
The reclamation program covering sound irri¬
gation projects as well as a comprehensive
soil-conservation program for the entire val¬
ley and the conversion of vast areas suitable
therefor to expand recreational uses are all
parts of an over-all development of the Mis¬
souri Valley which in the Interests of the
future of tlie Nation must come to pass.
This ultimate objective so feasible and readily
attainable when men with vision and coiorage
set to work to accomplish it should enlist the
active support of Americans in every sec¬
tion of the country for it visualizes a sound
central core for the Nation — a heartland
not only vastly rich in all the raw materials
essential to modern life, but strong and
virile in its capacity to produce those mate¬
rials and fashion them to the uses of man.
At the base of all of this, as I see it, lies
the problem of the complete and ordered
utilization of the water resources of the
region. In this, as was the case with count¬
less peoples of the past, rests the limiting
factor. Engineering genius has definitely
and certainly pointed the way to the sub¬
stantial removal of that limiting factor.
Action lies within the scope of Federal power
and is covered in its initial steps by the pro¬
visions of the flood control bill. I earnestly
hope that the Senate will find it possible to
pass the measure before adjournment.
Mr, AUSTIN. Mr. President, return¬
ing to my point in answer to the distin¬
guished chairman of the subcommittee.
1944
8669
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
I may state that the act of 1938 was full
of the spirit of usurpation of power. I
do not refer to water power. I'^efer to
political power. I venture to say that no
legislation appears on the books contain¬
ing such great centralization of authority
as the legislation contained in the flood-
control act of 1938, which was passed dur¬
ing the closing hours of the session of
that year. It is literally filled with the
theory of taking away from the States
any right, any discretion, any expression
of their wishes, and depositing the au¬
thority in the Federal Government.
There will be found not only those refer¬
ences which were read by the distin¬
guished Senator from Massachusetts in
the 1938 statute, but there will be found
many others similar in character and
spirit, vesting in two men here in Wash¬
ington authority to undo what we do here.
Let us authorize a certain project for a
certain type of dam, and some day we
wake up and find that the location of the
dam and the type of the dam have been
changed.
The 1941 act undertook to remedy
much of that. It is quite a different
proposition as will be seen when I con¬
tinue.
Mr. DANAHER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. DANAHER. I wonder if the Sen¬
ator will not allow me to underscore his
reference to the 1938 act by the observa¬
tion that it was passed without any
hearings whatever and without any
notice to the States of the United States
until it was an accomplished fact.
Mr. AUSTIN. I thank the Senator
from Connecticut.
Now I will go back and try to answer
the distinguished Senator from Louisi¬
ana with respect to what Congress did
with these modifications in 1941, except
in the case of Vermont. On page 640 of
55 Stat. we find this:
The project adopted by the act of June 22,
1936, to provide for local flood control protec¬
tion works on Otter Creek at Rutland, Vt., Is
hereby modlfled —
This is an act of Congress, it will be
understood —
In accordance with the recommendation of
the Chief of Engineers In Senate Document
171, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session,
and Is authorized to be constructed substan¬
tially In accordance with said recommenda¬
tion at an estimated cost of $308,000.
In other words, they did come back to
the Congress with the report of the modi¬
fication, and Congress had a chance to
act on it.
Now, let us take another on page 642.
Here is a case where a project was aban¬
doned and another substituted under the
great scope of the clause relating to mod¬
ification as it was interpreted :
The project for flood control on the lower
Mississippi River adopted by the act of May
16, 1928, as amended by the act of June 15,
1936 -
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hall
in the chair) . The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll;
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
Aiken
Austin
Bailey
Bankhead
Bilbo
Brewster
Brooks
Buck
Burton
Bushfield
Butler
Byrd
Capper
Caraway
Clark, Mo.
Connally
Cordon
Danaher
Davis
Downey
Ellender
Ferguson
George
Gerry
Gillette
Green
Guffey
Gurney
Hall
Hatch
Hawkes
Hayden
Hill
Holman
Jenner
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Kilgore
Langer
Lucas
McClellan
McFarland
McKellar
Maloney
Maybank
Mead
Mlllikln
Murray
Nye
O’Daniel
O’Mahoney
Overton
Radcllffe
Reed
Revercomb
Reynolds
Robertson
Russell
Shlpstead
Stewart
Taft
Thomas. Idaho
Thomas, Okla.
Thomas, Utah
Tunnell
Vandenberg
Wagner
Wallgren
Walsh, Mass.
Walsh, N. J.
Weeks
Wheeler
Wherry
White
Wiley
Willis
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-
six Senators having answered to their
names, a quorum is present.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I have
not concluded the statement which I
wish to make in support of the pending
amendment, but I desire to confer with
my colleague and the representative of
the Water Conservation Commission of
Vermont, who is here, and with repre¬
sentatives of the States of Massachusetts
and Connecticut, upon a possible agree¬
ment, and therefore I yield the floor with
the hope that I may be recognized later,
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I have a
letter from the Honorable Harold L.
Ickes, the Secretary of the Interior, in
reference to amendments to the flood-
control bill, and I ask that the letter be
read at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the clerk will read as requested.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, November 29, 1944.
Hon. Lister Hill,
United States Senate.
My Dear Senator Hill; The long-estab¬
lished reclamation policies of the Congress
are at stake In the flood-control bill, H. R.
4485. Proposed amendments, which may be
debated today, would authorize the Corps of
Engineers to develop and dispose of Irriga¬
tion water storage without regard to the re¬
payment and land policies of the Federal
reclamation laws.
These proposed amendments, although not
limited In geographical scope, were first spon¬
sored by California Interests. Recently, sev¬
eral western Senators have subscribed to them
without realizing, I am sure, the serious con¬
sequences. I hope that you will inform the
Senate of the serious departure those pro¬
posed amendments would make from the 40-
year-old reclamation policies of the Congress.
It Is proposed to modify section 6 of the
bill, as reported to the Senate, by providing
that, in connection with any dam and reser¬
voir the Corps of Engineers constructs, the
Secretary of War may contract for water stor¬
age for irrigation and any other beneficial
uses on whatever terms the Secretary of War
may deem reasonable. There would be no
requirement that the water users pay for
their benefits under the terms of the recla¬
mation law that now governs Federal irriga¬
tion projects. There would be no require¬
ment of compliance with the excess-land
provisions of the reclamation law which pro¬
mote family-sized farms and which curb
land speculation based on Government bene¬
fits.
As a result, approximately $500,000,000 of
accounts receivable from existing Federal
reclamation projects would be jeopardized,
since all water users on those projects would
Insist that they should enjoy the most favor¬
able terms that a Secretary of War in his
discretionary largess provided for an Army
Irrigation project. The door would be
opened to the monopolization of Federal ir¬
rigation benefits by industrialized farm cor¬
porations. It would be opened also to the
fleecing of war veterans by land speculators.
The proposed amendment of section 6 was
not requested by the Chief of Engineers or
by the Secretary of War. It was not pro¬
posed in the House, nor before the Senate
Committee on Commerce. It represents the
desire of California interests to obtain the
benefits of Federal Irrigation development
without having to comply with the repay¬
ment terms and the excess-land provisions
of the Federal reclamation laws.
The proposed amendment of section 6
should be rejected and the section 6 as re¬
ported by the Senate committee, or section
4 as passed by the House, should be adopted.
The same California interests initiated a
proposed amendment of section 8 in the bill
as reported to the Senate. In the form re¬
ported, or in the form passed by the House
(as sec. 6), that section should be adopted.
The Californians’ proposed amendment
would delete from the section, as re¬
ported to the Senate, the provision that
dams and reservoirs under the jurisdiction
of the War Department may be utilized for
Irrigation purposes only in conformity with
the provisions of this section. By another
major revision, the Californians’ proposed
amendment would exclude the application of
the section to any Army dam or reservoir
“’which supplements any existing locally op¬
erated Irrigation system or other locally op¬
erated water facilities.” As might be ex¬
pected, the projects included in the bill for
the great Central 'Valley area of California
(Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, p.
31, H. R. 4485) would supplement some ex¬
isting locally operated Irrigation systems.
Those projects, therefore, would be left sub¬
ject only to section 6 which, as the Cali¬
fornians would have It amended, disregards
the Federal reclamation laws while placing
the Corps of Engineers In the irrigation field.
The President, both orally and In writing,
has stated repeatedly that the Kings River
project (p. 33, lines 3-19) and the Kern
River project (p. 32, lines 13-19) and the
other projects proposed for the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River Basin, should be author¬
ized for construction by the Bureau of Recla¬
mation under the Federal reclamation laws.
As he has pointed out, they should be inte¬
grated parts of the Central VaUey project
which the Bureau of Reclamation has par¬
tially completed and placed in operation. I
hope that the Senate will give consideration
to the recommendations made repeatedly by
the President.
1 urge that the Senate adhere to the long-
established reclamation policies of the Con¬
gress and reject the California amendments
of sections 6 and 8 that would endanger the
future of Federal reclamation development
throughout the West.
Sincerely yours,
Harold L. Ickes,
Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I have
just listened to the reading of the letter
from the Secretary of the Interior. I
should like to make inquiry of the author
of the amendment, first, with respect to
section 6. Unless it is the intent of those
8670
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
November 29
who have written the amendment to re¬
move from the terms of the Reclamation
Act certain projects which combine flood
control and irrigation, I can see no neces¬
sity for its enactment.
It seems to me that the recommenda¬
tion made by the Secretary of the Inte¬
rior with respect to section 6 as it appears
in the amendment is well taken, because
what the House did in section 4 — or sec¬
tion 6, as renumbered by the committee —
applies only to domestic and industrial
uses. If there is in any flood-control
project built by the Corps of Engineers
surplus water which might be sold for
domestic and industrial uses, the money
to be obtained to be placed in the Treas¬
ury as miscellaneous receipts, that seems
to me to be a very sound proposal. But
if we are to collect money from those who
are irrigating arid lands, the collection
should be under the reclamation law.
There should not be two rules.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Presi¬
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. The Central
Valley, California, item was stricken in
the Committee on Commerce on my mo¬
tion, on the theory that it had no place
in a flood-control bill, that a change in
the irrigation laws was a technical sub¬
ject over which the Committee on Com¬
merce had no jurisdiction, and that it
had no business whatever in a flood-
control bill. It was also done in response
to a letter from the President of the
United States to the chairman of the
Committee on Commerce opposing a
change in the general reclamation laws.
It was my opinion, which was adopted
by the committee, that a flood-control
bill was no place for a change in the
general reclamation laws, and that if
such a change were to be made, it
should come in a separate bill, consid¬
ered and reported by the Conunittee on
Irrigation and Reclamation, and consid¬
ered by the Senate as a separate pro¬
posal. It has no place in a flood-control
bill. To that view I still adhere, and I
believe the committee still adheres to it.
Mr. HAYDEN. I believe the commit¬
tee exercised sound Judgment in that
regard, because otherwise it would be
legislating on a matter beyond the scope
of its jurisdiction.
Mr. CLARK of Missouri. And about
which we knew nothing.
Mr. HAYDEN. If section 6 were to re¬
main in the bill, as proposed in the sub¬
stitute, it certainly should be amended
so as to eliminate from it any irrigation
use of water.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
Mr. HATCH. Has not the Senator
from Ai'izona already prepared amend¬
ments which would take care of the en¬
tire situation?
Mr. HAYDEN. I prepared the amend¬
ments before I heard read the letter from
the Secretary of the Interior as to sec¬
tion 6. Let me say that if section 6 In
the proposed O’Mahoney amendment
were amended as I would suggest, it
would provide that except for irriga¬
tion uses, or solely for domestic and in¬
dustrial uses, these provisions might ap¬
ply. Then it would, in effect, be exactly
what the committee has already done.
If the Senator will look on page 5 of the
House bill, at section 4 or section 6 as
renumbered, it provides as follows:
That the Secretary of War is authorized to
sell to States, municipalities, private con¬
cerns, or Individuals, at such prices and on
such terms as he may deem reasonable, for
domestic and industrial uses surplus water
that may be available at any reservoir under
the control of the War Department.
If we eliminate irrigation uses, the
only uses which remain are domestic and
industrial. So I do not see that it would
be any improvement over what iff already
in the bill to adopt the suggested amend¬
ment and insert the words which I had
in mind, either “except for iiTigation
uses’’ or “for domestic and industrial
uses only.”
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Let me suggest to
the Senator that this discussion be post¬
poned for a moment, until the amend¬
ment to which he is addressing himself
is before the Senate. There is another
amendment which I should like to pre¬
sent now, and upon which I think there
will be no disagreement. Thereafter,
with due notice to the Senator, I shall
bring up for discussion the two amend¬
ments mentioned in the Secretary’s let¬
ter.
Mr. HAYDEN. I have no objection to
postponing the discussion.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President -
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President,
does the Senator wish to be recognized?
Mr. BANKHEAD. I wish to be recog¬
nized.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I should like to
proceed for a few moments.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Very well.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
desire to offer, as a part of the first sec¬
tion, of which subsection (a) was adopt¬
ed yesterday, the following, to be subsec¬
tion (b) :
(b) The use for navigation. In connection
With the operation and maintenance of such
works herein authorized for construction,
of waters arising in States lying wholly or
partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian
shall be only such use as does not conflict
with any beneficial consumptive use, present
or future, in States lying wholly or partly
west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such
waters for domestic, municipal, stock water,
irrigation, mining, or Industrial purposes.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I sug¬
gest that the amendment as read by the
Senator from Wyoming be handed to the
clerk in order that it may be properly
Inserted in the bill.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I left a copy of it
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair invites the attention of the Sen¬
ator from Wyoming to the fact that
the so-called Connecticut River amend¬
ment has not as yet been disposed of.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the
Chair calls attention to the fact that
the Connecticut River amendment has
not been disposed of. I thought an¬
nouncement had been made that the
Senator from Vermont and the Senator
from Connecticut were in conference
endeavoring to reach an agreement upon
that amendment. I ask unanimous
consent that the pending amendment
be temporarily laid aside, awaiting the
outcome of that conference, and that
we proceed to the consideration of the
amendment which I have offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the pending amendment is
temporarily laid aside. The amendment
offered by the Senator from Wyoming
will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. At the proper place
in the bill it is proposed to insert the
following:
(b) Tlie use for navigation, in connection
with the operation and maintenance of such
works herein authorized for construction, of
waters arising in States lying wholly or partly
west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be
only such use as does not conflict with any
beneficial consumptive use, present or fu¬
ture, In States lying wholly or partly west
of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters
for domestic, municipal, stock water, irriga¬
tion, mining, or Industrial purposes.
Mr. OVERTON. I have no objection
to that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With¬
out objection -
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. What is the purpose of the
amendment? Does it conflict in any
way with the views expressed by the Sec¬
retary of the Interior?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. It does not. As I
stated a moment ago, I shall call the at¬
tention of the Senate to the controver¬
sial amendment when it is reached.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on Agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Wyo¬
ming [Mr. O’Mahoney] .
Without objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President -
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
now offer, on page 7, the following
amendment -
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President -
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
have the floor. Does the Senator desire
me to yield?
Mr. BURTON. I was endeavoring to
get the attention of the Chair in order
that I might ask a question with respect
to subsection (b), which the Chair an¬
nounced was agreqd to.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield for that
purpose.
Mr. BURTON. I should like to inquire
with regard to subsection (b) , which we
have just been discussing. As I under¬
stand, that is in precisely the same form
in which it was originally presented by
the Senator from Wyoming - ^
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Not exactly.
Mr. BURTON. With the exception
that there have been eliminated from
it the words “or hereafter” dealing with
the construction of projects.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes; the Senator
is correct. That change was made so
that it would apply only to projects
which are authorized in the bill.
Mr. BURTON. I should like to in¬
quire of the Senator from Wyoming
whether he will throw a little light on
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
the efifect of the final clause in the sec¬
tion, which reads;
The use for navigation, In connection with
the operation and maintenance of such works
herein authorized for construction, of waters
arising in States lying wholly or partly west
of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be only
such use as does not conflict with any bene-
flcial consumptive use, present or future, in
States lying wholly or partly west of the
ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters for
domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation,
mining, or industrial purposes.
My question relates to the industrial
purposes. I can well understand, from
having lived in that section of the coun¬
try myself for a number of years, the
close relationship which use of water for
“domestic, municipal, stock water, irri¬
gation, and mining” purposes bears to
the needs of the territory west of the
ninety-eighth meridian. But when we
come to the industrial purposes, I wish
the Senator would enlarge upon that, be¬
cause it occurs to me that the effect of
the language might be, tmless it is other¬
wise explained, that the water might be
taken out of navigable rivers and might
be used for industrial purposes which
have no relation to the arid or semiarid
condition of the region. It might be
taken out in large quantities for manu¬
facturing purposes, and thus be detri¬
mental to the irrigation needs.
Of course, such a situation is com¬
parable to the situation in the East,
where we have need of water for indus¬
trial purposes, but where we cannot take
it out to the detriment of navigation.
Will the Senator comment on the situ¬
ation with reference to the arid and
semiarid States, as we find it referred to
in the amendment?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, let
me say that this language is a recogni¬
tion of the situation which has long ex¬
isted and which has found recognition in
practice, in the Federal law, and in the
State law in the area west of the ninety-
eighth meridian. I believe that the rule
which should apply in arid areas should
be slightly different from the rule which
may apply in the eastern States, because
of the very fact that the rain in the area
west of the ninety-eighth meridian is
only a fraction of that which falls in the
eastern area.
Industrial consumptive uses have al-
w'ays been recognized. However, I wish
to say that I doubt whether there is very
much consumptive use of water for in¬
dustrial purposes in the arid and semi¬
arid regions. I believe the water would
be used largely for navigation and irri¬
gation purposes. The situation was ex¬
amined thoroughly by the Army engi¬
neers and the navigation interests, and
no substantial reason was suggested for
any change of language.
Mr. BURTON. What I had in mind,
Mr. President, was the consumptive use
which might arise, for example, in con¬
nection with a steel mill in which a great
deal of water is evaporated, or in connec¬
tion with the use of water in a chemical
plant, in which a considerable amount of
water is actually consumed. Such plants
might, according to the purport of this
language, have priority over use for navi¬
gation purposes. As I understand the
situation, use for navigation, according
to the Constitution, has certain prior
rights, in that under the Constitution we
are not permitted to interfere with navi¬
gation, which is a Federal function.
I merely wish to make sure that the
language under consideration would not
result in anything which would be inter¬
preted as authority to permit a large di¬
version of water for industrial purposes
from rivers west of the ninety-eighth
meridian, so that it would raise a legal
question as to whether it was actually a
substantial Interference with navigation,
which I have understood has a Federal
status under the Constitution and cannot
be interfered with except to meet actual
necessities based on the peculiar need for
water in the arid or semiarid States.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. It is my under¬
standing that there would be no such
Interference and that no such question
would be raised. That is not the purpose
of the amendment, and I do not believe
it would be so interpreted.
Mr. BURTON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I do not know what
effect this discussion would have on the
interpretation the action we are taking,
but I believe it was the intention of the
Congress in enacting the Desert Land Act
— and the Supreme Court has so said in
a rather recent decision — that the arid
States should have the use of the water
for industrial purposes.
Speaking for myself, I do not believe
we should limit that privilege which Con¬
gress has already given us, and which
has been confirmed in the decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
I, like the distinguished senior Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney], do not
anticipate in the arid and semiarid
States any exorbitant demands on water
for industrial purposes; but we have no
crystal bowl here which we can use to
foresee the future, and we certainly do
not want to preclude any industrial de¬
velopment which it might be possible to
bring about.
From studying the whole history of the
policy of Congress with respect to the
arid and semiarid States, I think it is
very clear that it was intended that we
should have the privilege of achieving,
if we can, a well-rounded economy, and,
of course, that Includes some industrial
economy.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, the
point I wish to make, and the one which
the Senator from Colorado has been em¬
phasizing, is merely that this provision
is a declaration of policy. Therefore, it
is subject to amendment by the Congress
at any time the Congress wishes to
amend it. If it develops that there
would be an Interference with industrial
usage in the East, by comparison, or if
there were a very substantial diversion
of water for industrial uses having no
relation to the arid or semiarid condi¬
tions, resulting in interference with nav¬
igation, there would be no violation of
the present intent if at that time the
Senate were so to define its policy as to
avoid that situation.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. There is no at¬
tempt here to bind any future Congress.
Mr. BURTON. I wish to make clear
that a future Congress would not be vio¬
8671
lating the present intent if it were to
modify the language or policy so as to
meet a situation which does not exist at
the present time. I wish to endorse
heartily the purpose of meeting the needs
of the arid and semiarid States, and I
wish to do everything possible to pre¬
serve and promote -their development in¬
sofar as it is based on their peculiar geo¬
graphical situation.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I should like to add
that if the Congress should ever recon¬
sider the policies which have prevailed,
nothing which is being said here should
prejudice the contentions which might
be made either way on the subject.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
now offer the next amendment, which
will be subsection (c) of the section orig¬
inally offered. I ask that it be read at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be read.
The Chief Clerk. On page 7, after
line 5, it is proposed to insert:
(c) The Secretary of the Interior^ in mak¬
ing investigations of and reports on works
for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto
shall, in relation to an affected State or
States (as defined in par. (a) of this
section), and to the Secretary of War, be
subject to the same provisions regarding in¬
vestigations, plans, proposals, and reports as
prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section
for the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary
of War. In the event a submission of views
and recommendations, made by an affected
State or by the Secretary of War pursuant
to said provisions, sets forth objections to
the plans or proposals covered by the report
of the Secretary of the Interior, the proposed
works shall not be deemed authorized except
upon approval by an act of Congress; and
subsection 9 (a) of the Reclamation Project
Act of 1939 (63 Stat. 1187) and subsection
3 (a) of the act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat.
1418), as amended, are hereby appended
accordingly.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, there
Is no objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection -
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, am I to un¬
derstand that the words in lines 17 and
18 on page 7 of the amendment, to wit,^
the words -
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I assume the Sena¬
tor refers to the words “on grounds not
inconsistent with paragraph (c) of this
section.”
Mr. HILL. Were those words stricken
out?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes; they have
been omitted.
Mr. HILL. So I assume there is noth¬
ing in the amendment contrary to the
views of the Senator -
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
have told the Senate that when a con¬
troversial amendment arises I will call
the attention of the Senate to it.
Mr. HILL. I may say to the Senator
that those amendments on their face do
not, of course, show just what they are
or what they would do.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. No; but I have
told the Senate what I shall do, and I
usually keep my word.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tun-
NELL in the chair). The question is on
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 29
8672
agreeing to the amendment offered
by the Senator from Wyoming tMi’.
O’Mahoney].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. O’MAKONEY. Mr. President, we
now come to the first of the controversial
amendments. The amendment which
appears on page 8 of the printed text is
one which was agreed to at a Chicago
conference calied by the group of Sen¬
ators who were sponsoring the original
amendment. The conference was at¬
tended by representatives from many
Western and Eastern States. We
thought that the entire problem was
thoroughly canvassed at the conference.
Representatives of the Department of the
Interior were present. I understood that
they had been consulted about this
amendment. I now learn that my under¬
standing in that respect was incorrect.
I was called away from the conference
at the time sections 6 and 8 were under
discussion. I was called away by press¬
ing matters of importance, but of an al¬
together different character. I was
therefore not present when the amend¬
ments were agreed to. But, Mr. Presi¬
dent, in order to get them before the Sen¬
ate at this time, I propose, on page 5, to
strike out lines 8 to 16, inclusive, and
insert the provision which I will ask the
clerk to read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5 of the
bill it is proposed to strike out lines 8 to
16, inclusive, and insert the following:
Sec. 6. That the Secretary of War Is au¬
thorized to contract for water storage for any
ben'-ficial uses or purposes with States, legal
subdivisions thereof. State and interstate
agencies, municipalities, public, quasi public,
or private corporations, firms, associations,
or individuals on such terms and conditions
as he may deem reasonable, when storage
capacity for any such uses or purposes is or
may be made available at any reservoir now
or hereafter constructed by the War Depart¬
ment: Provided, That the right to the use of
water for such purposes shall have been es¬
tablished by proceedings in conformity with
State laws; And provided further. That no
such water storage shall be in conflict with,
or adversely affect, then existing lawful uses
of water. All moneys received from such con¬
tracts shall be deposited in the Treasury of
the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
wish to say a word or two in explanation.
The Senate should know that the entire
effort of those of us who have been work¬
ing for these amendments was to bring
about coordination and agreement be¬
tween the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Army engineers. As I have already
stated, there were before the conference
two separate plans for the development
of the Missouri Valley. There were
other plans involving other States. The
flood-control policy envisaged the con¬
struction of vast new works which would
store great amounts of water, over which
the War Department and the Army engi¬
neers would have jurisdiction.
Other projects which were offered —
and so far as this amendment is con¬
cerned they are included in the inte¬
grated report of the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion and the Army engineers for the Mis¬
souri Valley — embraced primarily irri¬
gation and reclamation projects.
It was the thought of those who were
spolnsoring this amendment that, so far
as the War Department is concerned, it
should have jurisdiction over those works
which are to be constructed primarily for
flood control, but if they store surplus
waters, such waters should be made
available for any purpose, domestic ir¬
rigation or otherwise, which residents fn
the neighborhood or in the vicinity af¬
fected may desire. But since it was the
purpose to give to the War Department
jurisdiction over War Department dams
and improvements, and to the Bureau of
Reclamation jurisdiction over those
which were primarily to be used for rec¬
lamation, this amendment is intended as
an authorization to the Secretary of War
to make contracts for the use of surplus
water stored in dams which would be
constructed solely by the Army engineers.
We then provide that the disposal of
water should take into account the fun¬
damental principles which have governed
the distribution and use of water in the
West. That, Mr. President, was the rea¬
son for this amendment.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield to the Sen¬
ator from Arizona.
Mr. HAYDEN. I believe the proposed
language goes entirely beyond what the
Senator has suggested. It seems to me
that so far as the use of water for irri¬
gation is concerned, the language would
change the fundamental principle con¬
cerning our irrigation law. Section 4 of
the House bill, now renumbered section
6, reads:
That the Secretary of War Is authorized to
sell to States, municipalities, private con¬
cerns, or individuals, at such prices and on
such terms as he may deem reasonable, for
domestic and Industrial uses —
And so forth. There could' be no pos¬
sible objection to that language because
we cannot tell what the circumstances
may be, and it is entirely probable that
the Federal Government will make re¬
imbursement for a part of the cost of
projects by obtaining revenue through
the means suggested. But when it is
left, as it would be by this language,
to the Secretary of 'War also to sell
water for irrigation uses on such terms
and conditions as he may prescribe, then
we change the basis of the reclamation
law.
I believe that by agreeing to this
amendment we would be no better off
than we would be by retaining the
language originally contained in the bill.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Sen¬
ator from Arizona. I should like to add
one further thought: It is a matter of
great importance to those of us in the
Western States who are greatly inter¬
ested in irrigation and reclamation, to
preserve the basic features of the long-
established law relating to projects of the
nature which we have been discussing.
But under the provision as it is now writ-
I ten, it would be entirely possible for the
Army engineers to construct dams and
reservoirs, and to supply water for pur¬
poses which would be entirely removed
from the reimbursable features, as well
as the acreage limitations and the other
basic foundations of our irrigation law.
I suggest to the Senator from Arizona
that instead of saying “except for ir¬
rigation’’ we should adopt language con¬
fining the application only to domestic
and. industrial purposes, as the House
bill now provides.
Mr. HAYDEN. If that were done, the
proposed amendment might just as well
be rejected.
Mr. President, I wish to make a state¬
ment as a matter of background. In
1914 Senator Marcus A. Smith, who rep¬
resented my State in this body, was op¬
posed by a candidate in a primary elec¬
tion who said that if he were elected to
the United States Senate he would seek
to amend the law so that no reimburse¬
ments would be made for irrigation
charges. His argument was that river
and harbor improvements were made
without reimbursement, that flood-con¬
trol works were constructed without re¬
imbursement, or, if there was, reimburse¬
ment it was merely nominal, and there¬
fore the same rule should apply to irri¬
gation. It was not my campaign, but
I dipped right into it, and I said to the
people of the Salt River project, which
is one of the great reclamation projects
of America, that our lands were being
burned up by drought; we asked and
plead with the Federal Government to
come there under the reclamation law
and build a great dam, reservoir, and
canal, and we said, “If you come here and
do that we will reimburse you for the
cost.” That was just as solemn an obli¬
gation as though a note were signed at
the bank to assure that word would be
kept. They did keep their word. What is
the effect? There is created a revolving
fund, as was originally contemplated,
and the money which is repaid is used
to reclaim lands elsewhere. If we de¬
part from that principle we are doing
the entire West and the country as a
whole and the Treasury a great Injustice.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, I want to make it
clear that our opposition to this par¬
ticular language is that it confers possi¬
ble advantages for which we have never
asked and which we ought not to seek.
Mr. HAYDEN. That is exactly the
position I take, and, as I have said, that
has been my position for 30 years,
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Arizona yield to the Sen¬
ator from Colorado?
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, I
have been trying to get the floor for
some time.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Alabama, the chair¬
man of the Committee on Irrigation and
Reclamation, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President. I
want to submit a parliamentary inquiry.
Would a motion be in order to refer this
amendment to the Committee on Irri-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8673
gation and Reclamation for Its con¬
sideration?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tlie
Chair will hold that a motion of that
kind would be in order.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Then, Mr. Presi¬
dent, I make that motion. I am not for
or against this amendment because,
frankly, I do not know its provisions.
As chairman of the Committee on Irri¬
gation and Reclamation, however, I feel
that it is my duty in the protection of
that committee and of Its jurisdiction
and of the reclamation laws to object to
this kind of procedure attempting to
bring about an important and material
amendment to the basic law. The dis¬
cussion which has just taken place fully
justifies that position, because it appears
that there is a difference of opinion
about how far this amendment goes — not
that it does not go a part of the way but
how far it goes — in changing in a most
Important way the fundamental law of
irrigation and reclamation. If we pro¬
ceed to enact legislation in this impor¬
tant field by this sort of method, by what
might be called a rider to a flood-control
program, without any hearing, without
any consideration of the changes pro¬
posed, without consideration by the com¬
mittee which has complete jurisdiction
of the subject, I submit to the friends of
the principle of the Irrigation and
reclamation laws that they are entering
upon a most dangerous proceeding and
one which may sooner or later lead to
the wreckage of the entire reclamation
program.
There are many, in fact, doubtless,
there are a large majority of the Mem¬
bers of this body and of the other body
who have no direct interest, so far as
their constituents are concerned, in the
reclamation program, and it might not
be difBcult to adopt hostile amendments
which would have a crippling effect upon
this program. I regard it as a great pro¬
gram in the interest of the economy not
only of the West but of the entire coun¬
try, and I should dislike to see adopted a
crippling, hamstringing amendment or
even amendments that do not appear at
this time to be vital but which may be¬
come so in the construction and admin¬
istration of the great program which has
been worked out over a period of time
by successive legislation, building it up
to fit the conditions in the West.
So, whether this is a good amendment
or not, I think it should not be entered
upon at this time and in this way, and
that this important change in the recla¬
mation laws should be referred to the
committee which has jurisdiction of irri¬
gation and which has not, as every Mem¬
ber from the West knows, declined to
consider or unduly delayed the consider¬
ation of any measure sent to that com¬
mittee dealing with these problems in the
West.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I have
listened with interest to the statement
made by the Senator from Alabama, the
chairman of the Committee on Irrigation
and Reclamation. I think the motion he
has made is sound and proper and that
the Senate should adopt it.
Mr. MILLIKIN. I do not rise to resist
the motion of the distinguished chair¬
man of the Committee on Irrigation and
Reclamation, of which I am a member.
I do wish to say, however, that section 4,
the amendment we have been consider¬
ing, and the succeeding amendment to be
offered have the combined purpose of not
subjecting all of the detail of the recla¬
mation law to projects where the Army
engineers have a reservoir in the middle
of an existing privately owned irrigation
system, where those who have that pri¬
vate irrigation system are in independ¬
ent position to take the water and there¬
fore should not be required to go through
all the incidents of a reclamation project
started from grass roots.
Mr, DOWNEY, Mr. President, in the
letter from the Secretary of the Interior
which was read a few minutes ago the
Secretary very vaguely, and I think with
a great deal of confusion, referred to the
genesis of this amendment which the
Senator from Wyoming has presented as
being from California interests. Of
course, I do not know what the Secretary
means by “California interests.” I think
it is a most unfortunate way for any
Cabinet member to characterize the sup¬
porters of any issue,
I do not know of any California Repre¬
sentative or Senator who attended the
reclamation meeting about which the
Senator from Wyoming spoke when he
said that was where this amendment
was first discussed. I have not had a
single letter from California urging my
support of the amendment or even dis¬
cussing it, and I think it is most unfortu¬
nate that under those conditions the Sec¬
retary of the Interior has sought to focus
the attention of the Senate upon Cali¬
fornia interests.
As a matter of fact, I think I clearly
understand what the Secretary is at¬
tempting to do. There will later be be¬
fore the Senate a controversy over the
viewpoint of representatives of the State
of California and the viewpoint of the
Department of the Interior. I think the
Secretary of the Interior is endeavoring
in advance to prejudice the understand¬
ing of the Senate upon that matter,
peculiarly affecting California, a sub¬
ject totally disconnected and independ¬
ent from the pending one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the motion of the Sen¬
ator from Alabama [Mr. Bankhead].
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
motion made by the able Senator from
Alabama will probably apply to section
8 of the O’Mahoney amendment and sec¬
tion 8 of the pending bill.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Let me say to the
Senator that it is my purpose, when we
reach that section of the bill, to make
a similar motion.
Mr. OVERTON. I think I am author¬
ized to make this statement: Insofar as
the War Department and the Chief of
Engineers are concerned, it is immaterial
whether these provisions appear in the
bill or not. I stated at the outset of the
debate on the bill, when I was present¬
ing it, that there are certain irrigation
features which were added to the bill at
the request of the Secretary of the In¬
terior, and that they were a departure
from the policy we have heretofore been
following with respect to the considera¬
tion of flood control and river and har¬
bor bills. They have been purely au¬
thorization bills, authorizing certain
projects to be constructed, either for
flood control or for navigation purposes.
It was, however, at the request of the
Secretary of the Interior, and at his very
earnest insistence, that these provisions
were included.
Section 8, which is by far the most im¬
portant section, is, according to my rec¬
ollection, word for word as recommended
by the Secretary of the Interior, and I
think he was rather insistent on the pro¬
vision going into the bill. The War De¬
partment has no objection to its going
in. That is the situation.
Mr. McFarland, Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. McFarland. I wish to make a
parliamentary inquiry. Does the motion
of the Senator from Alabama include
the committee amendment, or does it
include only the amendment proposed
by the Senator from Wyoming?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mo¬
tion refers wholly to the amendment of¬
fered by the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. OVERTON. Then we will revert
to the provisions of the bill, and let that
remain as reported by the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will
be a question to be determined.
Mr. OVERTON. I have no objection
then.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
made by the Senator from Alabama that
the pending amendment be referred to
the Committee on Irrigation and Recla¬
mation.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, I
gave notice that I intended to make the
same motion with reference to the
amendment appearing as section 8 of
the bill, which has not yet been offered,
but which I presume will be offered. If
the Senator from Louisiana will offer it
now, so that we can proceed to consider
it, I shall make the motion about sec¬
tion 8.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I shall be very glad
to do that.
Mr. BANKHEAD. All the Senator has
to do is to offer the amendment, and then
I shall make the motion.
Mr. O’MAHONEY, Mr. President, on
behalf of the group of Senators who
sponsored the amendment, I now offer
the following amendment, on page 5, to
strike out line 25, and on page 6, lines 1
to 11, inclusive, and to insert in lieu
thereof the amendment which I send to
the desk.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, I
move to refer that amendment to the
Committee on Irrigation and Reclama¬
tion for its consideration.
Mr. OVERTON. A parliamentary in¬
quiry. Should not the amendment be
stated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment as offered will be stated by
the clerk.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. It comes on pages
8 and 9 of the amendment, pages 5 and
6 of the bill.
(
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 29
8674
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, after
line 24, it is proposed to insert beginning
with line 19 of the amendment;
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior, that In con¬
nection with any dam and reservoir project
constructed or to be constructed by the Sec¬
retary of War -
Mr. OVERTON. A parliamentary in¬
quiry. That is not all the amendment.
The amendment should begin on page 5,
to strike out line 25.
Mr. OMAHONEY. 1 had stated that,
and the clerk is just taking up the
amendment which is to be inserted.
Mr. OVERTON. I should like to have
the entire amendment stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, it is
proposed to strike out line 25 and on page
6 to strike out lines 1 to 11, inclusive, and
in lieu thereof to insert the following as
section 8:
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior, that in connec¬
tion with any dam and reservoir project con¬
structed or to be constructed by the Secretary
of War additional works for the diversion and
distribution of water may be utilized for irri¬
gation, the Secretary of the Interior is au¬
thorized to make a report and findings on the
construction of such additional works for the
diversion and distribution of water as he may
deem necessary for such purposes. Such re¬
port and findings shall be made in accord¬
ance with and subject to the provisions of
> the Federal reclamation laws (act of June 17,
1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory
thereof or supplemental thereto) . Within
the limits of the v/ater users’ repayment
ability, such report may be predicated on the
allocation to irrigation of an appropriate por¬
tion of the cost of structures and facilities
used for Irrigation. After specific authoriza¬
tion of the Congress by an authorization act,
the Secretary of the Interior shall construct,
operate, and maintain such additional works
in accordance with said Federal reclamation
laws and shall be authorized to deliver to such
lands such portion of the water made avail¬
able by said dam and reservoir project as
may be set forth in said report and findings
of the Secretary of the Interior or as may be
otherwise provided by law. The provisions of
this section shall not prejudice lawful uses
then existing nor water rights or priorities
established under applicable State laws, and
shall not apply to any dam or reservoir here¬
tofore or hereafter constructed which supple¬
ments any existing locally operated irrigation
system or other locally operated water facili¬
ties, nor shall this section nor the provisions
of section 6 hereof apply to any dam or res¬
ervoir heretofore constructed in whole or in
part by the Army engineers, which provides
conservation storage of water for Irrigation
purposes.
Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, I
now make the motion I gave notice I
would make, that the amendment be re¬
ferred to the Committee on Irrigation
and Reclamation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair having held that the other mo¬
tion was in order, will hold that the mo¬
tion now made by the Senator from
Alabama is in order.
Mr. HAYDEN. Obviously, Mr. Presi¬
dent, on the face of the amendment, it
seeks to amend the Reclamation Act in a
flood-control bill, w'hich is something
W'hich should not be done. More than
that, however, if we look at the end of
the amendment, we And that It states
that this change —
shall not apply to any dam or reservoir here¬
tofore or hereafter constructed which supple¬
ments any existing locally operated irriga¬
tion system or other locally operated water
facilities, nor shall this section nor the pro¬
visions of section 6 hereof apply to any dam
or reservoir heretofore constructed in whole
or in part by the Army engineers.
In other words, a rule would be
adopted which amends the Reclama¬
tion Act as to certain projects, and then
the Secretary of War would be given
blanket authority to do as he pleases
with others, so obviously it is a question
which should go to the Committee on
Irrigation and Reclamation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Bank-
head].
The motion was agreed to.
NOMINATION OF EDWARD R. STETTINIUS.
JR., TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE AND
OF MAJ. GEN. PATRICK J. HURLEY TO
BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND
PLENIPOTENTIARY TO CHINA
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
desire to call attention -
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. CONNALLY. The Committee on
Foreign Relations this morning voted
unanimously to report favorably the
nomination of Mr.- Edward R. Stettinius,
Jr., to be Secretary of State, and Maj.
Gen. Patrick J. Hurley to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
the United States of America to China.
These matters are rather urgent, so I ask
unanimous consent, as in executive ses¬
sion, that the Senate proceed to the con¬
sideration of these two nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. LANGER. I wish to object to the
giving of unanimous consent at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Chair understand that objection has
been made?
Mr. LANGER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec¬
tion is heard.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from North Dakota bear
with me for a moment?
Mr. LANGER. Yes.
Mr. CONNALLY. Does the Senator
have any objection to either one of these
nominees?
Mr. LANGER. There may be.
Mr. CONNALLY. Well, does the Sen¬
ator have objection? I do not know
about “may be.”
Mr. LANGER. There may be. I can¬
not say definitely.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I
shall ask that the Senate take up for
consideration one of the nominations. If
It is agreeable. But I wish to observe
to the Senator from North Dakota that
the handling of matters dealing with
foreign relations is very important.
Mr. LANGER. Is the Senator going to
ask that the Senate consider the Hurley
nomination?
Mr. CONNALLY. Yes,
Mr. LANGER. I have no objection to
that.
Mr. CONNALLY. Is the Senator’s ob¬
jection to the nominee for Secretary of
State?
Mr. LANGER. There may be objec¬
tion.
Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator from
North Dakota had the opportunity to
appear before the Committee on Foreign
Relations. He did not appear.
Mr. LANGER. I am very sorry. I had
a meeting of a subcommittee of the Com¬
mittee on the Judiciary of which I am
chairman.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President; will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.
Mr. WHI'TE. I am in complete agree¬
ment with the distinguished chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee that it
is advisable that the promptest possible
action be had on these nominations, and
I express the hope that the Senator from
North Dakota will at his earliest con¬
venience reach a determination as to
whether or not he is to oppose the nomi¬
nation of Mr. Stettinius.
Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.
Mr. VANDENBERG. I should like to
have the Record very plain that the
action of the committee this morning
was unanimous; that the Republican
side of the committee was unanimous;
and I want to add my own testimony
that from my knowledge of Mr. Stet¬
tinius I think he is one of the ablest
possible successors to Secretary Hull
and that I cordially join in the hope
that with the least possible delay his
nomination may be confirmed.
Mr. CONNALLY. I thank the Sen¬
ator from Michigan. I had observed in
my opening remarks that the action of
the committee was unanimous. There
was no partisanship. There was no ob¬
jection made by any outside parties. No
Senator raised any objection v/hatever.
I sincerely urge the Senator from North
Dakota either to withdraw his objection
at this time or, if he is going to oppose
the confirmation, that he be prepared to
do so at the earliest possible date, be¬
cause this is a matter which affects, not
the welfare of Mr. Stettinius but the wel¬
fare of all the people of the United States
and the people of the world. We do not
want any interruption in the processes of
carrying on our foreign relations at this
critical period.
I do not care to present either one of
the nominations, Mr. President, in view
of the objection.
FLOOD -CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President. I
call attention to the fact that by send¬
ing to the Committee on Irrigation and
Reclamation the proposed amendment
to section 6 of the bill, as reported by the
committee, that section, as reported by
the committee, is now before the Senate.
One of the reasons why it was desired
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
to amend that section was that it pro¬
vides for the sale by the Secretary of
War of water in the West. Ownership of
the water does not repose in any indi¬
vidual or in any agents. It reposes in
the public. So it was our desire to
change this language from an authoriza¬
tion to sell to an authorization to make
contracts for the distribution; and so,
Mr. President, I now offer a clarifying
amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. Before the Senator
from Wyoming offers the amendment,
there is a committee amendment in sec¬
tion 6 which ought to be acted on first,
and then any other amendments may be
offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair holds that the committee has the
right to perfect the section before it is
subject to amendment from the floor.
The committee amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, in line
13 of section 6, after the word “Depart¬
ment”, it is proposed to insert “Provided,
That no sale of such water shall adversely
affect then existing lawful uses of such
water.”
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President -
Mr. OVERTON. The committee
amendment has not been acted upon.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I desire to ask the
Senator to modify the committee amend¬
ment, because of the use of the word
“sale.” My purpose was to provide fo
contracts for the water. So I move that
the committee amendment be altered so
as to read:
Provided, That no contracts for such water
shall adversely affect then existing lawful
uses of such water.
Mr. OVERTON. There is no objection
on the part of the committee to that
modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, will now
b© st)3it)0d
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President,
may I now offer the following amend¬
ment —
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, we
have not yet acted on the committee
amendment, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the committee
amendment in section 6, on page 5, as
modified.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, may I
inquire as to the interpretation of other
language in the very section with which
the Senator from Wyoming is dealing?
If we change the word “sale” to "con¬
tracts,” in the committee amendment in
line 13, will it not be necessary to change
the language appearing in line 8, on page
5 of the bill?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes. That would
also be necessary. I began, however,
from the other end, by taking the lan¬
guage in the committee amendment. So,
Mr. President, on page 5, in lines 8 and
9, I move to strike out the words “sell
to” and to insert in lieu thereof the words
“make contracts with”, so that the begin¬
ning of the section will read:
That the Secretary of War Is authorized
to make contracts with States, municipali¬
ties —
And so forth.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, there
is no objection on the part of the com¬
mittee to that change being made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, in lines
8 and 9, it is proposed to strike out the
words “stell to” and to insert in lieu
thereof “make contracts with.”
Mr. OVERTON. I again make the ob¬
servation that there is no objection on
the part of the committee to that amend¬
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, now
I desire to call to the attention of the
Senator from Arizona -
Mr. BURTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me again?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Yes.
Mr. BURTON. As a matter of clari¬
fication, and as a matter of legal inter¬
pretation, I wish to ask the Senator from
Wyoming, would it be necessary to change
the language in the last sentence of
section 6, that is the language “All
moneys received from such sales shall
be deposited,” or would the language be
satisfactory as it stands?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. I thank the Sen¬
ator. The word “sales” should be
changed to the word “contracts.”
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent that the word “sales” in line 15 on
page 5 be changed to “contracts.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 5, in line 15,
it is proposed to strike out the word
“sales”, and to Insert in lieu thereof the
word “contracts.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Now, Mr. Presi¬
dent, I desire to call the attention of the
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Bankhead]
and the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
Hayden] to the fact that the motion
which was made to refer to the Commit¬
tee on Irrigation and Reclamation the
proposed amendment to section 8 which
I offered earlier in the day, leaves before
us the committee amendment which ap¬
pears on page 6 of the bill. This is a
new section 8.
The last proviso of that section, how¬
ever, is language which came from the
House, and it deals precisely with the
subject which aroused the interest of the
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Wherry]
and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Hay¬
den]. Let me read that language:
Provided, That this section shall not apply
to any dam or reservoir heretofore con¬
structed which supplements any existing lo¬
cally operated irrigation districts.
The Senator from Nebraska should
have an opportunity to present his
amendment. The Senator from Ari¬
8675
zona has now entered the Chamber. Let
me invite his attention to the bill as re¬
ported by the committee.
Mr. O^^RTON. Mr. President, a par¬
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. OVERTON. -What is before the
Senate?
Mr. O’MAHONEY. ’There is nothing
before the Senate at the moment. I am
merely exercising the senatorial prerog¬
ative of talking.
Mr. OVERTON. If the Senator from
Wyoming will permit me, I think the
clerk ought to state the committee
amendment appearing in the bill on page
6, after line 11.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. That, of course, is
the proper parliamentary procedure, and
I have no objection.
Mr. OVERTON, I believe that is the
proper procedure. We can then proceed
in an orderly way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the next committee
amendment.
The Chief Clerk. On page 6, after
line 11, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing:
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary
of War determines, upon recommendation by
the Secretary of the Interior, that any dam
and reservoir project operated under the
direction of the Secretary of War may be
utilized for irrigation purposes, the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to construct,
operate, and maintain, under the provisions
of the Federal reclamation laws (act of June
17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory
thereof or supplementary thereto), such ad¬
ditional works in connection therewith as he
may deem necessary for Irrigation purposes.
Such irrigation works may be undertaken
only after a report and findings thereon have
been made by the Secretary of the Interior
as provided in said Federal reclamation laws
and after subsequent specific authorization
of the Congress by an authorization act; and,
within the limits of the water users’ repay¬
ment ability, such report may be predicated
on the allocation to irrigation of an appro¬
priate portion of the cost of structures and
facilities used for Irrigation and other pur¬
poses. Dams and reservoirs operated under
the direction of the Secretary of War may be
utilized hereafter for irrigation purposes only
in conformity with the provisions of this
section, but the foregoing requirement shall
not prejudice lawful uses now existing.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, If
the Senator from Arizona will look on
page 7 of the bill as reported by the
committee, he will find that the con¬
cluding sentence of section 8 is language
which came to the Senate from the
House. It reads as follows:
Provided, That this section shall not apply •
to any dam or reservoir heretofore con¬
structed which supplements any existing
locally operated irrigation districts.
That provision was contained in sec¬
tion 8, which the Senate has referred to
the Committee on Irrigation and Recla¬
mation. Obviously, nothing will be
gained by referring the amendment to
the Committee on Irrigation and Recla¬
mation if the language as contained in
the bill as it passed the House remains in
the bill. I knew that the Senator from
Nebraska, as well as the Senator from
Arizona, had made some comments about
No. 166 - 8
November 29
8676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
that precise section, so I wished to give
notice before action was taken.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, it
seems to me that it would be the part
of wisdom to strike out that proviso, and
at least take it to conference. Then
there could be no question about the
entire matter.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, that
question will arise later. The sole ques¬
tion now is on agreeing to the commit¬
tee amendment. Is there any objection
to the committee amendment? The pro¬
viso is not a part of the committee
amendment.
Mr. HAYDEN. Is it in order to move
to strike out the proviso at this time?
Mr. OVERTON. We should act first
on the committee amendment. The pro¬
viso is not a committee amendment. It
was in the bill as it came from the House.
Mr. HAYDEN. Then, as I understand,
it will be in order, as soon as the com¬
mittee amendment is disposed of, to move
to strike out the proviso.
Mr. OVERTON. It will be in order.
Mr. HAYDEN. Very well.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in view
of the statement just made by the distin¬
guished senior Senator from Wyoming, I
should like to say that I am not offering
an amendment to this section. I am
ready to vote on the committee amend¬
ment. If the amendment to this section
as proposed in the so-called O’Mahoney
amendment had been agreed to, I would
have had an amendment to offer to that
section; but inasmuch as that amend¬
ment has been referred to the Committee
on Irrigation and Reclamation, I have
no objection to proceeding to. a vote on
section 8, which is now before the Senate
for consideration. I am in favor of the
committee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the committee
amendment, on page 6, after line 11.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I now
move to strike out the proviso on page 7,
lines 9 to 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pro¬
viso proposed to be stricken will be
stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 7, line 9,
after the word “existing”, it is proposed
to strike out “Provided, That this section
shall not apply to any dam or reservoir
heretofore constructed which supple¬
ments any existing locally operated irri¬
gation districts.”
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, may
I ask the Senator from Arizona to ex¬
plain exactly why he wishes that lan¬
guage stricken out?
Mr. HAYDEN. Because if we are to
proceed in the way the committee has
recommended, it ought to be done that
way. If not, we should not adopt the
amendment. I do not like to see a pro¬
posal adopted, and then have an excep¬
tion made to it when we do not know
how broad or how narrow the exception
is. Either we ought to do it or we ought
not to do it. For that reason, since we
are changing the situation and provid¬
ing for cooperative action, we should
have cooperation everywhere. There¬
fore, I suggest that the pi’oviso be
stricken, and taken to conference.
Mr. OVERTON. It will be in confer¬
ence, and we can work it out there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ari-*
zona [Mr. Hayden],
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WHERRY. • Mr. President, I
should like to ask a question of the
Senator from Arizona. Will the Senator
from Arizona please explain what action
was taken?
Mr. HAYDEN. The committee made
a recommendation for cooperative
action.
Mr. WHERRY. Yes.
Mr. HAYDEN. If we are to have co¬
operative action, let us have it, and not
have an exception to it when we do not
know just what the exception means.
The language is vague. It says:
Provided, That this section shall not apply
to any dam or reservoir heretofore construct¬
ed which supplements any existing locally
operated irrigation districts.
It ought to be stricken out.
Mr. WHERRY. And it has been
stricken out by the Senate?
Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, on be¬
half of my distinguished colleague the
senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. John¬
son] and myself, I offer the following
amendment: After the word “existing”,
in line 9, on page 7, strike out the colon,
insert a period, and add the following;
“This section shall not apply to any dam
or reservoir heretofore constructed in
whole or in part by the Army engineers,
which provides conservation storage of
water for irrigation purposes.”
I should like to explain the purpose
of that amendment. It is in the
O’Mahoney amendment, but was not in
the bill as it came from the House. In
the late 1930s an able Representative
from Colorado initiated the steps which
resulted in the so-called Caddoa Dam
on the Arkansas River. It was an odd
project, in which irrigation storage was
planned and built into it from the begin¬
ning, but there were no provisions in the
enabling law as to how that storage
should be financed, or how it should be
handled. Since then there has been a
water dispute between the State of Kan¬
sas and the State of Colorado involving,
among other things, the waters stored
in that reservoir. So we do not wish to
do anything here that could possibly
prejudice these situations. The language
which I have proposed will protect them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the
Senator please send his amendment to
the desk?
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, may I inquire of the Senator
from Louisiana whether or not this is
the opportune time to renew the discus¬
sion with regard to flood control In the
Connecticut River?
Mr. OVERTON. There is an amend¬
ment pending, which the clerk is about
to state.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I was
about to send for the Senator from Ver¬
mont if this were the opportune time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment offered by the Senators from
Colorado will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 7, line 9,
after the word “existing”, it is proposed
to strike out the colon, insert a period
and the following: “This section shall
not apply to any dam or reservoir here¬
tofore constructed in whole or in part
by the Army engineers, which provides
conservation storage of water for irriga¬
tion purposes.”
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senators from Colo¬
rado.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
now offer the last of these various
amendments. I call the attention of the
clerk to page 10 of the printed amend¬
ments.
On page 20 of the bill, it is proposed
•to strike out lines 5 to 25, inclusive: on
page 21, it is proposed to strike out lines
I and 2; and on page 7, between lines
II and 12, it is proposed to insert a new
section, which will be numbered section
9. I ask that it be read at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair asks that the amendments be
stated separately and voted on sep¬
arately, if there is no objection. With¬
out objection, the first amendment will
bfe stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 20, it is
proposed to strike out lines 5 to 25, in¬
clusive, and on page 21 it is proposed
to strike out lines 1 and 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
next amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 7, between
lines 11 and 12, it is proposed to insert
the following new section :
Sec. 9. (a) The general comprehensive
plans set forth in House Document 475 and
Senate Document 191, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, as revised and co¬
ordinated by Senate Document 247, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, are hereby
approved and the Initial stages recommended
are hereby authorized and shall be prose¬
cuted by the War Department and the De¬
partment of the Interior as speedily as may
be consistent with budgetary requirements,
(b) The general comprehensive plan for
flood control and other purposes in the Mis¬
souri River Basin approved by the act of
June 28, 1938, as modified by subsequent
acts, is hereby expanded to include the works
referred to in paragraph (a) to be undertaken
by the War Department; and said expanded
plan shall be prosecuted under the direction
of the Secretary of War and supervision of
the Chief of Engineers.
(c) Subject to the basin-wide findings and
recommendations regarding the benefits, the
allocations of costs and the repayments by
water users, made in said House and Senate
documents, the reclamation and power de¬
velopments to be undertaken by the Secretary
of the Interior under said plans, shall be
governed by the Federal Reclamation Laws
(act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and
acts amendatory thereof or supplementary
thereto), except that irrigation of Indian
trust and tribal lands, and repayment there¬
for, shall be in accordance with the laws
relating to Indian lands. •
1944
8677
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
(d) In addition to previous authorizations
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
the sum of $200,000,000 for the partial accom¬
plishment of the works to be undertaken un¬
der said expanded plans by the Corps of
Engineers.
(e) The sum of $200,000,000 is hereby au¬
thorized to be appropriated for the partial
accomplishment of the works to be under¬
taken under said plans by the Secretary of
the Interior.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I un¬
derstand that all the committee amend¬
ments have been disposed of, with the
exception of one pertaining to the Con¬
necticut River Basin. Of course, I under¬
stand that a small committee amend¬
ment pertaining to the Connecticut River
Basin still remains to be acted upon. It
provides that none of the dams shall be
operated for the generation of hydro¬
electric power.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I would say to the Senator
from Louisiana that the controversy
which has taken place yesterday and
today between the Senators from Ver¬
mont and Connecticut has been adjusted
satisfactorily, and an amendment which
is agreeable to all concerned is to be of¬
fered.
In view of the absence of the Senator
from Vermont, who will propose the
amendment, I think I should suggest
the absence of a quorum.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Austin
Bailey
Bankhead
Bilbo
Brewster
Brooks
Buck
Burton
Bushfield
Butler
Byrd
Capper
Caraway
Clark, Mo.
Connally
Cordon
Danaher
Davis
Downey
Ellender
Ferguson
George
Gerry
Gillette
Green
Guffey
Gurney
Hall
Hatch
Hawkes
Hayden
Hill
Holman
Jenner
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Colo.
Kilgore
Banger
Lucas
McClellan
McFarland
McKellar
Maloney
Maybank
Mead
Millikln
Murray
Nye
O’Daniel
O’Mahoney
Overton
Radcllffe
Reed
Revercomb
Reynolds
Robertson
Russell
Shipstead
Stewart
Taft
Thomas, Idaho
Thomas, Okla.
Thomas, Utah
Tunnell
Vandenberg
Wagner
Wallgren
Walsh, Mass.
Walsh, N. J.
Weeks
Wheeler
Wherry
White
Wiley
Willis
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I renew
the statement made earlier in the day
of the necessary absence, upon business
of the Senate, of the senior Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. La FolletteI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-
six Senators having answered to their
names, a quorum is present.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I am
about to ask permission to perfect my
amendment and because, as originally
submitted, it was sponsored by a num¬
ber of Senators, I make a unanimous-
consent request to perfect it. I realize
that under the rules, had I submitted
the amendment alone I could perfect it
myself. But under the circumstances I
ask unanimous consent to perfect my
amendment.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. LANGER. Referring to page 10,
lines 5 to 7, would the language there
contained be included or eliminated?
Mr. AUSTIN. If the amendment is ef¬
fective in touching the committee
amendment, it would delete the language
to which the Senator has referred. My
amendment does not undertake to deal
with that point.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Is
there not a separate committee amend¬
ment now pending which would deal
with the provision referred to?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Will
the Senator from Vermont yield so that
I may ask a question of the Senator from
Louisiana?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I ask
the chairman of the subcommittee if
there is not pending an amendment re¬
lating to the development of dams in the
Connecticut River Valley?
Mr. OVERTON. There is.
Mr. AUSTIN. So I understand the
amendment relating to that subject will
be discussed separately.
Mr. OVERTON. I so understand.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, has my
unanimous-consent request been acted
upon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous-consent re¬
quest of the Senator from Vermont to
perfect the amendment? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I perfect
the amendment, as follows: On page 10, 1
wish to amend by striking out lines 3 to 7,
inclusive, and inserting the following:
Nothing in this act or in any previous au¬
thorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam other than a flood -
control-type dam, on the main stream of the
West River in the towns of Dummerston or
Newfane, in the State of Vermont: Provided,
further. That the Army engineers are au¬
thorized and directed to construct eight reser¬
voirs in the West River Basin in Vermont in¬
stead of the flood-control reservoir authbrized
by existing law, known as the Williamsville
Reservoir in the above-mentioned towns, in
accordance with an alternative plan sub¬
mitted by the Vermont State Water Conser¬
vation Board as the same may be modified
by agreement between the said board and
the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engi¬
neers, provided the total costs of the alter¬
native plan shall not exceed the sum of
$11,000,000 and the amount of flood control
secured by them at the entrance of the
waters of the West River into the Connecti¬
cut River shall not be less than 75 percent
of the flood control which may be secured
from the single so-called Williamsville Reser¬
voir now authorized to be constructed by the
Army engineers. Plans, proposals, or reports
heretofore authorized for construction at
Cambridgeport, Ludlow, South Tunbridge,
and Gaysvllle In the Connecticut River Basin,
or any modification hereafter made of the
comprehensive plan for the Connecticut River
Basin in Vermont under authority of the
Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, or
of section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved
August 18, 1941, shall not be carried out until
after compliance with the provisions of para¬
graph (a) of section — of this act.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Did
the Senator mean to strike out lines 3 to 7,
inclusive,? The language beginning with
the word "Provided” , in line 5 and con¬
tinuing to the end of line 7, is in the form
of a committee amendment and has not
yet been acted upon. Therefore there
would be nothing at that point to ex¬
clude.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Vermont will yield to me,
I may say that if the proposed amend¬
ment should be adopted, it would have
the effect of striking out the committee
amendment.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. In
other words, if the amendment were
adopted it would eliminate the amend¬
ment which has been proposed by the
committee, as well as the House text of
the bill.
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator is cor¬
rect. The amendment of the Senator
from Vermont would be, on page 10 in
line 3, to strike out down to and includ¬
ing line 7, the following language:
That neither this authorization nor previ¬
ous authorizations shall be construed to au¬
thorize the construction of a high dam at the
Williamsville site: Provided further. That
none of the dams herein authorized for the
Connecticut River Basin shall be utilized for
the generation of hydroelectric power.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. That
makes the situation clear, and it is in
accordance with my personal wishes.
However, I do not know’ whether the Sen¬
ator from Vermont desires to include the
language beginning in line 5 and reading
as follows:
Provided further, That none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shall be utilized for the generation of
hydroelectric power.
My understanding is that if his amend¬
ment is adopted the language which I
have just read, including the committee
amendment, w'ould be stricken from the
bill.
Mr. AUSTIN. On that point I under¬
stand that in connection with any of*^
the dams which are appropriately so con¬
structed, it would be possible to make of
them power dams as well as flood-con¬
trol dams if an agreement to do so were
arrived at between the Federal Govern¬
ment and the State. Another oppor¬
tunity would be afi'orded for cooperation,
proper consideration having been given
to the views of the people at home.
On that point, Mr. President, allow me
to say that our great concern has been
to protect, if possible, certain interests
which were emphasized in the testimony.
One interest was recreation. Recreation
is of real interest to Vermont. It is not
only a human interest, but it turns into
cash. Vermonters need the cash.
Another interest was that of agricul¬
ture, to avoid unnecessary destruction
of any of the good farm lands in the val-
8678
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
November 29
leys affected. I say “unnecessary de¬
struction”: I mean for the purposes of
flood control. That policy may still be
carried out in spite of the elimination of
the committee amendment.
Now I will make a brief explanation
of what the perfected amendment would
do.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield there?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. HILL. As I understand, the
amendment which the Senior from
Vermont now offers is in lieu of the
committee amendment as well as some
language which was in the bill as it
passed the House of Representatives. Is
that correct?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. The language as
it passed the House and which is elimi¬
nated is as follows:
Provided, That neither this authorization
nor previous authorizations shall be con¬
strued to authorize the construction of a
high dam at the Williamsville site.
And the language which is in the com¬
mittee amendment is:
Provided further. That none of the dams
herein authorized for the Connecticut River
Basin shall be utilized for the generation of
hydroelectric power.
Mr. HILL. All that language goes out,
does it not?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; it all goes out.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
committee amendment was not a mat¬
ter of discussion among the Senators,
although it was a matter on which I
thought we ought to reach an agreement.
It is satisfactory to me personally that
those provisions be eliminated; but the
controversy was over the language of the
House provision rather than the Ian-,
guage of the committee amendment.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is correct. Let me
state for the Record that my colleague
and I appreciate the good spirit in which
the distinguished Senators from Massa¬
chusetts [Mr. Walsh and Mr. Weeks]
and the distinguished Senators from
Connecticut [Mr. Maloney and Mr.
Danaher] cooperated in arriving at the
content and language of this amended
amendment. We appreciate it greatly,
and we are all in harmony on it as it now
stands.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield to my colleague.
Mr. AIKEN. I should like the Record
also to show that the Member of the
House of Representatives from Spring-
field. Mass., Mr. Clason, was present at
the conference at which this compro¬
mise was agreed upon.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is correct.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. It was
suggested to the Member of the House,
Mr. Clason, to whom the Senator from
Vermon has referred, that his name be-
mentioned as one of those who cooper¬
ated, but out of his extreme modesty he
said he would just as soon not be in¬
cluded. I think, however, he is deserv¬
ing of having his name appear, for no
one in the Congress has been more in¬
terested or has been more helpful during
the years In urging flood control in the
Connecticut Valley.
Mr. AIKEN. I think we should over¬
whelm his modesty and have his name
show in the Record.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, the first
part of this amendment as it is now
drafted is expressly directed to the West
River Basin, that is, the river itself and
its tributaries. It provides for the sub¬
stitution of eight dams for one, the dam
mentioned as the Williamsville Dam.
Four of the eight dams would be on the
West River itself and four of them on
tributaries thereof. The plan would in¬
clude a dam at Mt. Taber on Mt. Taber
Branch; a dam on West River called The
Island location; a dam on Winhall Brook;
a dam on West River at Jamaica; a dam
on Whetstone Brook; a dam on West
River above Townshend; a dam on Dover
Branch above South Newfane, and a dam
at the site of the old Williamsville sta¬
tion in the town of Newfane.
It is expected that the carrying out of
this plan will accomplish a greater degree
of flood control than provided in the
limitation contained in this amendment.
The limitation on this project is that —
The amount of flood control secured by
them —
That is the eight dams —
at the ' entrance of the waters of the West
River into the Connecticut River shall not
be less than 75 percent of the flood control
which may be secured from the single so-
called Williamsville Reservoir, now author¬
ized to be constructed by the Army en¬
gineers.
Their own research and planning in¬
dicates that if these eight dams are con¬
structed as now planned they will in fact
provide for a drainage area of 358.8
square miles or 88 percent of the total
area.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Vermont yield to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Vermont yield to the Sena¬
tor from Connecticut?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. If the Senator is will¬
ing, I should like to have it appear in
his remarks that as we sought a compro¬
mise we were constantly advised by the
Army engineers, or a representative of
the Army engineers, we wanted to be
sure that we were not denying proper
flood protection to the lower valley. As
we understand, the Army engineers are
in accord with the action we propose to
take. Is that correct?
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I cannot
speak for the Army engineers, but the
engineer who has represented them here,
helping the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee in the conduct of this
bill, has gone over this text very thor¬
oughly and takes the position that the
Army engineers are ready to carry out
the design or plan the Congress approves
and that they have no objection to the
plan here proposed. There was a ques¬
tion on one point, namely, the type of
dam at the Williamsville site.
Mr. MALONEY. I know that to be so,
because I raised that question myself.
Mr. AUSTIN. The difference is be¬
tween the use of the words “detention
type dam” and “flood control dam,” and
the Army engineers and the representa¬
tive here of the Vermont Water Conser¬
vation Commission have gone over that
subject fully and have agreed on the lan¬
guage adopted, which is “flood control
type of dam,” instead of “detention type
of dam.”
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I think we might further
show in the Record that, regardless of
what the dam is called, whether a deten¬
tion, retention, or flood-control dam, we
mean that type of dam which permits the
water to flow through immediately fol¬
lowing a flood as fast as the river below
can accommodate it, so that the area
back of it will be cleared of water within
a reasonably short time after the storm
rather than perhaps taking months to be
drained off, thus enabling the farmers to
use their lands for grazing purposes or
any other purpose, perhaps cutting a
little hay from it.
Mr. AUSTIN. I think I ought to say
that in the conversation between the
Army engineers and the representative
of the water conservation commission
on that point the understanding was that
this dam could be of a type having gates
in it so that if the crest of a flood on
the Connecticut River reached so dan¬
gerous a height that it became important
for flood control to do so, the dam could
be closed completely, and thus stop the
flood entirely until the crest of the flood
in the Connecticut had passed by the
outlet of the West River. The under¬
standing was that type of dam ought to
be erected and that it was a better type
of dam than one that merely had a fixed
outlet in it. So it is understood that the
words “flood-control dam,” as distin¬
guished from “detention dam,” make it
possible for gates, or valves, to be con¬
structed in this particular dam in order
to obtain the highest degree of control
of the water at the peak of the flood. It
was also stated that in all probabili^ no
good purpose could be served in detain¬
ing the water longer than necessary to
allow the peak of the flood to pass by
the mouth of the West River.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I wish
to make an observation or two, and that
will be all I shall have to say in refer¬
ence to the amendment suggested by the
senior Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, the Senator from Vermont has
only two more clauses in the amendment
to explain, and I suggest that we then
have the explanation of the Senator from
Louisiana. The Senator from Vermont
was in the middle of the explanation, and
there are only two more clauses.
Mr. OVERTON. I appreciate the Sen¬
ator’s yielding. I shall wait.
Mr. AUSTIN. Another new clause in
the amendment is the proviso:
That the total cost of the alternative plan
shall not exceed the sum of $11,000,000.
The estimates relied upon by us in this
negotiation are as follows: V7e have un¬
derstood that the single dam at Wil¬
liamsville, as planned, would cost $3,400,-
000, and that the eight dams, as we have
calculated, would cost $9,514,240.
■ In consideration of the protection and
the saving of property which would be
1944
8679
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
made by the choice of the eight dams in¬
stead of a single dam, this difference of a
million dollars In the cost of the project
Is entirely reasonable, and from an eco¬
nomic point of view entirely justified.
The sum of $11,000,000 is stated in the
bill as a sufBciently generous authoriza¬
tion to take care of errors and estimates,
so that we can feel sure that the project
Is not to be held un on account of the
lack of an adequate authorization.
Unless there is question about that, I
shall pass on to the last observation I
wish to make.
Mr. BAILEY. Before the Senator pro¬
ceeds, will he yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator’s amend¬
ment is a substitute for the portion of the
bill appearing on lines 3 to 7, on page 10,
and that does away with the Senate com¬
mittee amendment, "Provided further,
That none of the dams herein authorized
for the Connecticut River Basin shall be
utilized for the generation of hydroelec¬
tric power.” What is the effect of the
Senator’s amendment with respect to the
generation of hydroelectric power?
Mr. AUSTIN. The effect of the amend¬
ment would be to permit the use of the
type of dam in which hydroelectric power
could be generated if the Army engineers
and the officials of the State of Vermont
agreed upon it. It merely gives the
people of the State a chance to be heard
on that question, and it is based upon
the knowledge we have of the additional
destructiveness to farm lands and to
highways, and the creation of a nuisance
in the way of exposed wet soil close to
highways, which things affect our eco¬
nomic interests, and affect the human
elements which are involved in this prob¬
lem.
It also benefits us in this regard, that
In a river valley like that of the Yadkin -
Pee Dee, there is the same problem which
the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina met with respect to the situa¬
tion in his State. Our problem is that
the type of dam, whether for the genera¬
tion of electricity or not, changes the in¬
jury which may be suffered on account of
the removal from the valley of houses in
case the dam were built for electric gen¬
eration.
There are other interests of the State
to be consulted in connection with the
decision as to whether in a certain valley
the type of dam shall be one from which
hydroelectric power can be generated.
Mr. BAILEY. I think the Senator’s
amendment provides very properly for
advice from the State, but how is that
advice to be gotten, from the governor,
from the legislature, or from the utilities
commission; or in what manner?
Mr. AUS'TIN. Subdivision (a) of the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Wyoming, which has already- been ac¬
cepted, points out the manner. Does the
Senator care to have me read that?
Mr. BAILEY. No; if it is in the
amendment, I can read it.
Mr. AUSTIN. Very well. A way is
pointed out by which to consult the State
governments. It is not limited to the
State of Vermont, or to the West River
Valley, or to any valley. It is a provi¬
sion which covers the entire United
States and enables all the States of the
Union to be heard on the problems which
are peculiar to their localities.
On one side of a certain meridian there
is no substantial need for irrigation; on
the other side there is great interest in
it. Of course, the consideration of what
the construction of dams will affect on
one side of the meridian is different from
that applicable to the other side.
We come under the benefit of that pro¬
vision by the last clause, which I was
about to point out. This will be my last
comment about this new text. It reads
as follows:
Plans, proposals, or reports heretofore au¬
thorized for construction at Cambridgeport,
Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysvllle, in
the Connecticut River Basin, or any modifica¬
tion hereafter —
And “hereafter” is a new word —
or any modification hereafter made of the
comprehensive plan for the Connecticut
River Basin in Vermont under the author¬
ity of the Flood Control Act approved June
28, 1938, or of section 3 of the Flood Control
Act approved August 18, 1941, shall not be
carried out until after compliance with the
provisions of paragraph (a) of section -
of this act.
Now I think that, on my own desire,
I shall read paragraph (a) :
In conformity with this policy :
(a) Plans, proposals, or reports of the Chief
of Engineers, War Department, for any works
of improvement for navigation or flood con¬
trol not heretofore or herein authorized,
shall be submitted to the Congress only
upon compliance with the provisions of this
paragraph (a). Investigations which form
the basis of any such plans, proposals, or
reports shall be conducted in such a manner
as to give to the aCected State or States,
during the course of the investigations, in¬
formation developed by the investigations
and also opportunity for consultation re¬
garding plans and proposals, and to the
extent deemed practicable by the Chief of
Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the
investigations. If such investigations in
whole or part are concerned with the use
or control of waters arising west of the
ninety-seventh meridian, the Chief of En¬
gineers shall give to the Secretary of the
Interior, during the course of the investiga¬
tions, Information developed by the investi¬
gations and also opportunity for consulta¬
tion regarding plans and proposals, and to
the extent deemed practicable by the Chief
of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the
investigations. The relations of the Chief
of Engineers with any State under this para¬
graph (a) shall be with the Governor of the
State or such official or agency of the State
as the Governor may designate. The term
"affected State or States” shall Include those
in which the works or any part thereof are
proposed to be located; those which in whole
or part are both within the drainage basin
Involved and situated in a State lying wholly
or in part west of the ninety-eighth meridian;
and such of those which are east of the
ninety-eighth meridian as, in the judgment
of the Chief of Engineers, will be substan¬
tially affected. Such plans, proposals, or re¬
ports and related investigations shall be made
to the end, among other things, of facili¬
tating the coordination of plans for the con¬
struction and operation of the proposed
works with other plans Involving the waters
which would be used or controlled by such
proposed works. Each report submitting any
such plans or proposals to the Congress shall
set out therein, among other things, the
relationship between the plans for construc¬
tion and operation of the proposed works
and the plans. If any, submitted by the
affected States and by the Secretary of the
Interior. The Chief of Engineers shall trans¬
mit a copy of his proposed report to each
affected State, and, In case the plans or pro¬
posals covered by the report are concerned
with the use or control of waters which rise
in whole or in part west of the ninety-seventh
meridian, to the Secretary of the Interior.
Within 90 days from the date of receipt of
said proposed report, the written views and
recommendations of each affected State and
of the Secretary of the Interior may be sub¬
mitted to the Chief of Engineers. The Sec¬
retary of War shall transmit to the Con¬
gress, with such comments and recommenda¬
tions as he deems appropriate, the proposed
report together with the submitted views and
recommendations of affected States and of
the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary
of War may prepare and make said trans¬
mittal any time following said 90-day period.
The letter of transmittal and its attach¬
ments shall be printed as a House or Senate
document.
That is all ^ of paragraph (a), and It
has been accepted by the Senate, and It
is the paragraph to which my amendment
refers.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. BAILEY. The language Is gen¬
eral, but I think it applies to all the proj¬
ects in the bill.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes, indeed. It would
not have been necessary to mention it in
my amendment were it not for the fact
that we are dealing with a prior au¬
thorization which is not covered by para¬
graph (a), unless we include such parts
of the previous authorization as we wish
to have included, and so we name them,
we point them out, and we say that on
such a valley, and on such a valley, this
shall be done. We say that if hereafter
any modifications are to be made in the
authorized plans, that then such modifi¬
cations shall come under paragraph (a).
Mr. BAILEY. I take it the Senator’s
amendment relates to a very special case
in which the Senator has to place the
language in question.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.
Mr. BAILEY. But to the other proj¬
ects generally the language which the
Senator has just read will apply?
Mr. OVERTON. Not as to projects
contained in this bill, but projects here¬
after undertaken.
Mr. BAILEY. I am speaking about
projects which may hereafter be under¬
taken.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes.
Mr. BAILEY. I tried to follow the
Senator while he was very kindly read¬
ing the language. It is very difficult to
follow the reading of a lorig paragraph
or the reading of several paragraphs.
No preventive power is placed in a State.
Mr. AUSTIN. No.
Mr. BAILEY. The only power is that
of conference, or of protest, perhaps.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is true.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, in or¬
der that the record may be clear, let me
say that it provides a little more power
than simply the power to protest. If the
governor of the State protests, it pro¬
vides the power of delaying, the power to
demand further consideration.
Mr. OVERTON. K I may be permitted,
I think I could clarify the situation. It
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 29
8680
would admit of no delay except the de¬
lay of 90 days in which the governor
or governors must submit a report, which
report will be incorporated in the report
of the Chief of Engineers. That is the
only delay that would occur under the
language of paragraph (a) to which the
Senator has referred. There is no power
In a governor to set aside any project
which the Congress has authorized.
There Is no power to vitiate any act of
Congress. The only power as stated by
the Senator from Vermont, is one of con¬
ference and one of protest.
Mr. AUSTIN. It provides an oppor¬
tunity to be heard, which is vitally im¬
portant. It provides for cooperation,
which I think will be a new principle in
the relationship between the Federal
Government and the several States. For
many years we have clashed over the
subject of States’ rights, and when we
have had our greatest difficulty it has
been simply because there was not pro¬
vided any machinery or means by which
the Federal Government and the State
governments could get together and un¬
dertake to work out the plans in co¬
operation. This is a new principle, and
I am very much in favor of it.
Mr. BAILEY. I agree with the Sena¬
tor.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield, so that
I may attempt to clarify the matter?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. The
provisions which the Senator from Ver¬
mont has read, and which are a duplica¬
tion of the O’Mahoney amendment which
is included in the bill as now drafted,
only apply, so far as the Connecticut
River Valley is concerned, to four dams,
and then only to future changes that
may be made in the plans. The word
“hereafter” is of vital importance. It
does not apply in any other respect to
the construction of flood control in the
Connecticut River.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I will say
frankly I am very much interested in
the undertaking to institute a new and
better policy. I am not opposing the
proposition, but I am inquiring because
of the peculiar situation I am in in North
Carolina. The Senator referred to it. I
shall not undertake to describe it. The
Army engineers said that they proposed
to build a dam at a given point for mul¬
tiple purposes: that is, flood control and
the production of electric powpr. They
then proposed to build a dam 30 feet or
40 feet or 100 feet higher, wholly in the
Interest of the production of electrical
energy. Now, does the ‘State have the
right under the general provision which
the Senator read, to call that in question,
and ask for delay, and ask for its views
to be considered?
Mr. AUSTIN. I .shall state what I un¬
derstand the situation to be. I under¬
stand that that special project was de¬
leted from this bill by an amendment
offered by the distinguished Senator from
North Carolina. Therefore it is not au¬
thorized. Is that correct?
Mr. BAILEY. I had to move to strike
out the Yadkin-Pee Dee project, because
It would result in so much destruction.
Mr. AUSTIN. Is it not true that it is
not an authorized project?
Mr. BAILEY. It has t oen approved by
the engineers, and it was placed in this
bill for the purpose of authorization.
Mr. AUSTIN. It has not yet been au¬
thorized by Congress.
Mr. BAILEY. It has been stricken
from the bill by my amendment.
Mr. AUSTIN. Very well. On that
imderstanding, North Carolina would
have the same benefit of this provision,
paragraph (a), with respect to the Yad¬
kin-Pee Dee River as any other river.
The amendment, which we agreed to,
which we refer to as paragraph (a), ap¬
plies all over the United States.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator has made
it very clear to me, and I thank him.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I have
no idea of taking the time of the Senate
further. I believe after the very consid¬
erate attention that has been given by
everyone interested to this amendment,
and the unanimity of agreement among
those who have been specially interested'
in it, that it ought to be accepted by our
colleagues in the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I wish
to congratulate the Senators from Con¬
necticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont
upon having arrived at an understand¬
ing with respect to this very controver¬
sial matter. I shall not oppose the
amendment which has been offered by
the very able and distinguished senior
Senator from Vermont [Mr. Austin]. I
wish to see an end to the controversy
upon the floor of the Senate just as soon
as possible in order that we may com¬
plete consideration of the bill.
However, I wish to make this observa¬
tion in order that this action may not
be used as a precedent hereafter. I do
not think it is a wise policy — and it is
one which has never been pursued so far
as the committees of both Houses are
concerned — to agree to the incorporation
in a bill of a new project which has not
been reported on by the Chief of Engi¬
neers and has not undergone committee
hearings.
There are eight reservoirs which, by
the amendment, the Chief of Engineers
is authorized and directed to construct.
Those eight reservoirs, on the tributaries
of the West River, as I understand, have
not been reported on by the Chief of
Engineers and have not undergone com¬
mittee hearings. However, since this
problem with reference to the Connecti¬
cut River Basin has been before Congress
for so many years, and since there is a
concord between the distinguished repre¬
sentatives of the three States concerned,
I believe that there should be no oppo¬
sition to the adoption of the amendment
by the Senate. For that reason I shall
not oppose it, but I do not wish it to be
urged hereafter as a precedent.
As I have heretofore said with refer¬
ence to the Yadkin-Pee Dee project, the
action taken in that connection was not
the inclusion of a new project which has
never been considered. It was the
elimination of a project which had been
considered. I was perfectly willing to
eliminate the project, because it affected
only North Carolina, and because the
Senator from North Carolina desired
that it be deleted from the bill. There¬
fore I had no objection.
In the State of Pennsylvania there
were two reservoirs which I believe af¬
fected only Pennsylvania, and which the
two Senators from Pennsylvania desired
to have eliminated. They were very
small and insignificant. That question
did not involve the substitution of new
projects, and there was no objection to
the proposal.
There was a small project in Indiana,
and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Jen-
ner] desired to have it eliminated. His
statement on the floor was that it af¬
fected only a very small area within the
State of Indiana. From my own
knowledge of that project, I should say
that in a rather remote and perhaps in¬
significant way, it does affect the flood
waters of the Mississippi River, because
it is on a tributary of the Mississippi
River; but I thought that that was too
remote to give any importance to it.
Those are the exceptions which I think
might be held against me; but in the
future I do not wish to have any Senator
say on the floor that we must agree to
some new project because the two Sena¬
tors from the State in which the project
is located desire its inclusion in the bill,
even though it has not undergone engi¬
neering investigation and committee
hearings.
To repeat, I am very happy that at
long last there is, so far as the Senate
can go, apparently an amicable settle¬
ment of this controversy.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, we can all understand the fear
and apprehension which the distin¬
guished Senator from Louisiana enter¬
tains toward accepting legislation which
has been framed outside the committee,
and through a compromise reached by
various Senators. We are grateful to
him for his graciousness and for his will¬
ingness to accept the decision which we
have made after much deliberation.
In my own name, and in the name of
my distinguished colleague [Mr, Weeks],
as well as in the names of the Senators
from Connecticut, I wish to express ap¬
preciation to both the distinguished Sen¬
ators from Vermont for their willingness
to cooperate with us in reaching this
agreement.
We had two objectives which were
entirely in conflict with each other. The
objective of the Senators from Connec¬
ticut and Massachusetts was to protect
the lives of their people and the property
of their people against floods coming
down through the waters of the Connec¬
ticut River from the State of Vermont,
where the headwaters are. The objec¬
tive of the Senators from Vermont — a
very worthy and praiseworthy one — has
never been to prevent reasonable flood-
control protection to the States below
the State of Vermont. They have stren¬
uously and insistently, over a long period
of time, insisted in adopting flood-con¬
trol projects that nothing more than
was absolutely necessary should be done
in the way of usurpation of property or
prevention of the conservation of their
territory. That has been their position,
if I correctly understand it.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I yield.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. AUSTIN. That Is a very gracious
statement, Mr. President, coming from
the dean of the New England delegation
in the Senate. It is very pleasing to us.
The recognition of years of amicable re¬
lationship among us in general, and
especially upon the subject of flood con¬
trol, in which we have interests which
seem to be in opposition to each other.
Is characteristic of the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts, who has
Just spoken. On behalf of my colleague
IMr. Aiken] and myself, as well as the
whole State of Vermont, I wish to have
the Record show our gratitude.
Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I
thank the Senator. I ought to say to
the Senator that we fully sympathize
with the point of view of the Sena¬
tors from Vermont. I myself, when
alone and thinking of this problem, had
many pictures come to my mind of the
beautiful valleys and fertile soil along
the Connecticut River in Vermont which
would be submerged when it became
necessary to establish flood-control
projects, and I have therefore had an
understanding of the attitude of the Sen¬
ators from Vermont.
Mr. President, we have achieved what
seemed to be the impossible. The Sen¬
ators from Massachusetts and Connecti¬
cut, with the assistance of a very able
and distinguished Member of the other
House [Mr. Clason], who has collabo¬
rated with us so faithfully and so well,
and who perhaps knows this subject bet¬
ter than anyone else, have achieved the
seemingly impossible. We feel that -when
these reservoirs are built we shall have
obtained control of the floods which have
swept down upon the prosperous cities
and towns of Massachusetts and Con¬
necticut. I believe also we have agreed
to the minimum amount of sacrifice
which the State of Vermont ought to be
asked to make; and we appreciate ex¬
ceedingly the cooperation which the Sen¬
ators from Vermont have given us in
reaching this very happy solution of a
difficult and long-drawn-out contest.
We can hereafter march forward to¬
gether with a united front for all things
which will benefit New England.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Lucas in the chair). The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Sen¬
ator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mahoney],
as modified by the amendment of the
Senator from Vermont [Mr. Austin], as
a substitute for the language on page
10, in lines 3 to 7.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I should
like to say just a word. First, I desire
to thank the senior Senator from Massa¬
chusetts [Mr. Walsh] for the kind words
and the cooperation of himself and his
associates, his colleague the junior Sen¬
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Weeks],
and his colleagues the Senators from
Connecticut. Vermont has never ob¬
jected to protection for the States down
the Connecticut River. I have worked
with the Senator from Massachusetts for
a great many years, beginning in 1936
and 1937, to achieve the protection which
all of us have sought. We have — and, I
think, rightfully — insisted that such pro¬
tection be afforded with a minimum of
damage to our State.
It seems to me that the agreement
reached here this afternoon attains that
end, and that the program can go for¬
ward providing for the protection of the
people of Massachusetts and Connecti¬
cut, while at the same time depriving
Vermont of as little of her resources as
possible.
Furthermore, I wish to say that while
I had objected to the blanket prohibition
against production of power on the trib¬
utaries of the Connecticut River from
the federally constructed dams, yet it
appears to me that the amendment leaves
the way open for the generation of what¬
ever power can be generated at the dams
where the production of power is feas¬
ible. In the State we have dams at
which the production of power, while
possibly bringing a few dollars into the
Treasury, would take much more from
our citizens; but we have other sites
where power can be developed without
doing excess damage to the community.
I think the amendment leaves the way
open to such development for that pur¬
pose.
Again I wish to thank my colleagues
and to express appreciation of the work
of my own colleague from Vermont in
reaching this agreement.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I hesi¬
tate to intrude upon this very delightful
and commendable love feast, but I have
a request from a distinguished Member
of the Senate. The senior Senator from
Florida [Mr. Andrews] has sent me an
amendment, together with the statement
that he is ill. He requests me to offer
the amendment in his name. I send it
to the desk and ask unanimous consent
that it be received on behalf of the Sen¬
ator from Florida, with a view to having
it called up at the proper time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I
should like to take this opportunity to
thank the Senators from Vermont, Con¬
necticut, and Massachusetts for their
very great kindness in helping North
Dakota, this afternoon, by the adoption
of the Missouri River Basin section of
the O’Mahoney-Millikin amendment,
which will give North Dakota approxi¬
mately 1,200,000 acres of irrigated land.
Let me add that thus far the only ir¬
rigated land in North Dakota has
amounted to 21,615 acres, whereas our
neighboring State of Montana has had
1,711,409 acres of irrigated land.
On behalf of my State, I wish to ex¬
press my great thanks for the support
given to that portion of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
O’Mahoney], as modified by the amend¬
ment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Austin], offered as a substitute for the
language on page 10, in lines 3 to 7.
[Putting the question.]
The amendment as modified was
agreed to.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, on be¬
half of the junior Senator from Oregon
[Mr. Cordon], I desire to call up at this
time his amendment proposed on page
4, in line 11. The amendment is a non-
8681
controversial one, and I understand
there is no objection to it.
Mr. OVERTON. There is no objec¬
tion to It.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, may the
amendment be stated before action is
taken upon It?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 4, line 11,
after the period, it is proposed to insert
the following: “No use of any area to
which this section applies shall be per¬
mitted which is Inconsistent with the
laws for the protection of fish and game
of the State in which such area is sit¬
uated.’’
'The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I also
have been requested by the junior Sen¬
ator from Oregon [Mr. Cordon] to an¬
nounce that he will not propose the
printed amendments on page 3, line 11;
on page 3, line 12; and on page 3, in line
15. He has written a short paragraph
in explanation of why he will not offer
those amendments to the bill. I ask
unanimous consent that his explanation
be printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the state¬
ment was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
I also presented an amendment providing
that all dams constructed under the flood
control shall contain suitable and necessary
means for protection of fish life In the sev¬
eral rivei’s involved. I have reached the con¬
clusion, however, that the subject of flsh
protection Is of such vital importance that
it should be dealt with in a separate bill,
and only after frill consideration of all the
factors Involved.
For those reasons I shall not offer the
amendment in question to the pending bill.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, several
days ago I submitted an amendment on
behalf of the Senator from New Hamp¬
shire [Mr. Tobey]. I send it to the desk
and ask that it be stated. I understand
there is no objection to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 10, line 5,
after the word “site”, it is proposed to
insert a colon and the following: “Pro¬
vided further. That neither this author¬
ization nor any previous authorization
shall be construed to authorize the con¬
struction of a dam or reservoir at the
Sugar Hill site on the Ammonoosuc
River.”
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. GURNEY. On this same matter
I wish to say that the senior Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. Bridges]
asked me to offer a similar amendment
with respect to the same site. With the
Senator’s permission, I should like to re¬
quest that there be printed in the Record
at this point a letter I have received this
afternoon from the office of the Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. Bridges] with
respect to this matter. The letter shows
that he is in agreement with the junior
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
Tobey] in requesting that the amend¬
ment be approved.
8682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Therefore I ask unanimous consent to
have the letter printed at this point in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as
follows :
United States Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
November 29, 1944.
Hon. Chan Gurney,
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Gurney; Relative to the
amendment to H. R. 4485 which you sub¬
mitted in behalf of Senator Bridges and
which amendment, in effect, calls for the
elimination of the construction of a reser¬
voir at what is known as the Sugar Hill site,
the following facts may be of value to you
when action is taken on this matter.
The flood control bill of 1936 set up a series
of reservoirs to be established for flood-con¬
trol purposes. The site chosen at the time
of the passage of this bill for a flood-control
dam in the particular district in question was
known as the Bethlehem Junction site and,
I believe, at that time no objection was raised
to that particular site. Further plans were
developed and approved in 1938, and the
present Sugar Hill site was substituted for
the Bethlehem site. Serious objections are
being raised by Inhabitants of the communi¬
ties affected by the construction of a dam
and a reservoir on this site.
A dam and reservoir at the Sugar Hill site
will flood a branch line of the Boston &
Maine Railroad, which serves the territory
between Woodsville, N. H., and Berlin, N. H.
It is my understanding that the railroad
would be reimbursed in the amount of $1,-
500,000, covering the loss of right-of-way.
The welfare and industry of 9 towns, each
with a population of 2,000 or more inhabi¬
tants, would be affected by the loss of this
railroad.
The particular site chosen is in the heart
of the White Mountain area, which area has
a considerable revenue from tourist and rec¬
reational business. The financial loss which
the communities would suffer as a result of
no railroad service can be easily understood.
This is particularly true during the winter
season as the communities to be affected have
developed an extensive winter recreational
program, and are wholly dependent upon
train service from Boston and New York
areas for their clientele.
It is further estimated that farm lands in
the value of $1,500,000 would be directly af¬
fected by the construction of this dam and
reservoir. This particular section of New
Hampshire is very hilly and mountainous,
and farm land is at a premium. Therefore
any loss in farm properties such as is esti¬
mated would be a most serious blow to the
communities involved.
Sincerely yours,
Carl W. Corliss.
Secretary to Senator Bridges.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I under¬
stand that the Army engineers do not
wish to have a dam constructed there
anyway, so I do not see why there should
be objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ver¬
mont [Mr. Aiken] on behalf of the Sen¬
ator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tobey],
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, on be¬
half of the junior Senator from Delaware
[Mr. Buck], who is unable to be present
at this time, I offer an amendment, which
1 send to the desk and ask to have read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 38, after
line 22, it is proposed to insert a new
paragraph, as follov/s:
Rehoboth Beach, Bethany Beach, Lewes,
and Fenwick Island, Del., and other points
along the Delaware coast, with a view to pro¬
viding protection against damage resulting
from erosion and from floods due to wind
and tide.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Ne¬
braska in behalf of the junior Senator
from Delaware [Mr. Buck].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, on be¬
half of the senior Senator from Okla¬
homa [Mr. Thomas] I offer the amend¬
ment, which I send to the desk and ask
to have stated. I may say that I have no
objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 39, after ,
line 18, it is proposed to insert the fol¬
lowing;
Big Canyon on Washita River in Murray
County, Okla.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the senior Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. Overton] in behalf of
the senior Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Thomas].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment, which I send to the desk
and ask to have read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk. On page 22, after
line 4, it is proposed to insert the follow¬
ing: "Provided further. That neither this
authorization nor any previous authori¬
zation shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a dam or reservoir at the
so-called Tuttle Creek site on the Big
Blue Kansas River, a tributary of the
Kansas River in Kansas.”
Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, a pro¬
test meeting was held at Topeka, Kans.,
about 3 weeks ago which was largely at¬
tended by the officials of the county,
and without exception they were all op¬
posed to any action of the kind proposed
to be taken. They have asked their
Senators to do everything they could to
have the pending measure amended
along the lines set forth in the amend¬
ment which I have just offered. I do
not believe there is any opposition in
Kansas to the amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I find
that sometimes projects are suggested to
a committee together with the statement
that there is no opposition to the project,
and later a great deal of local opposition
develops because many of the local peo¬
ple had not previously been advised of
the project. I have also found it to be
true that sometimes when a statement
has been made in perfectly good faith
that there was no opposition to the
elimination of a project, objection was
made later. The project referred to in
the amendment Is not local. It is situ¬
ated in the Missouri River Basin. It is a
very important project. I cannot con¬
sent to the elimination of the project, or
an amendment to do so, when no hear¬
November 29
ing has been held upon the matter and
when it is a part of a comprehensive pro¬
gram.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I inquire
if the chairman of the subcommittee is
unable to accept the amendment which
has been offered by the senior Senator
from Kansas [Mr. Capper]. In the first
place, construction of Tuttle Creek Dam
has not been actually authorized.
Mr. OVERTON. If it has not been
authorized there is no purpose in asking
that it be eliminated.
Mr. REED. A meeting was held at To¬
peka, as the senior Senator from Kansas
has said, at which both he and I were
present. The meeting was widely at¬
tended. So far as I know, there is no
opposition in Kansas to the elimination
of the project. There is no support for
it in the valley affected, which is one
of the most important and fertile valleys
in Kansas, and which would be almost
entirely destroyed if Ihe project were
constructed.
Mr. OVERTON. Am I correct in un¬
derstanding the Senator to say that the
project has not been authorized by Con¬
gress?
Mr. REED. That is my impression.
Mr. OVERTON. Then, there is no ne¬
cessity of offering an amendment rela¬
tive to it.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I did not
know until today that the senior Sen¬
ator from Kansas had intended to offer
the amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. It was my recollec¬
tion that the project has been author¬
ized.
Mr. REED. May I inquire of the senior
Senator from Louisiana whether he an¬
ticipates a vote upon the bill as a whole
tonight?
Mr. OVERTON, I think we will reach
a vote.
With reference to the amendment,
Mr. President, I may say that I will take
it to conference.
Mr. REED. Very well. The senior
Senator from Louisiana says that he will
take the amendment to conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. Capper].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from
Louisiana.
USE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED SILVER
FOR WAR PURPOSES
Mr. AIKEN obtained the floor.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I have
asked the Senator from Vermont to yield
in order that I might make a unanimous-
consent request that the pending bill be
temporarily laid aside. If my request is
granted, I shall then move that the Sen¬
ate proceed to the consideration of Sen¬
ate bill 1954, a bill introduced by the
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Green],
known as the silver bill. It authorizes
the extension of existing legislation for
1 year.
OFFICE OF BUDGET MD FIMCB
Legislative Reports a.nd Service Section
7Sth-2nd, No. l66
digest of proceedings of congress of interest to the DEPARTMEilT OF AGRICULTURE
(issued December 1, 19^^» for actions of Thursday, Novesiber ^Qr
(For staff of the Department, only)
CONTENTS
. 4
Inflation .
... .10
Road authorisations...
- 5,9
Appropriations .
. 4
Land-grants . . .
.... 7
z
Small business.
.... 18
r^Oaucracy .
... .14
Land speculation..
... .10
Social security .
.... 16
t/Laim'^. .
.... 4
Lands, farm .
....15
State fairs. . .
13
Electrification. . . .
....17
Nomination .
.... 6
Taxation. . . . .
Farm security .
....15
Personnel .
..3,19
Tobacco prices.
Flood control .
.... 8
Post-war planning.
. l2
Transportation. .......
.... 7
Foreign trade. . .
... .12
Price control .
.11,14
Veterans . . . . . .
...3,18
Forestry .
.... 2
Reclamation .
_ 8
War pov/ers.- . .
. . . . 1
HOUSE
1.
WAR POWERS. Passed as reported H. R, 4933> to extend the Second War Powers Act .
(pp. 875T“70)» (J’or provisions see Digest 165*)
Rejected amendments hy Rep, Gwynne, Iowa, to strike out the Committee
amendment and insert a proh'ihition on the imposition of penalties, fines, or
sanctions unless specified hy statute and expressly delegated to such agency
hy lawful authority, hy a 49-57 vote (pp. 8766-7O) ; and hy Rep. Folger, N, C. ,
to provide that the authority given to the district courts to set aside orders,
etc., shall not auply to order of suspensiion as to priority grant or allocation
resulting from a determined general requirement for the effective prosecution
of the war, hy a 7~95 vote (pp. ,
2. FORESTRy, Rep. Brown, Ohio, announced that he v/ould request the Rules Committee
to grant a rule for the consideration of H, R. 224l, to abolish the Jackson
Hole National Monument and to restore the area included therein to the Teton
National Forest (p, 8755) •
3. VETERANS; PERSONNEL. Concurred in the Senate amendments to H. R. 53^6, to
change the period from 40 to 90 days in which a veteran may make application
for the joh which he held at the time of his induction; and to provide that if
hospitalized for not more than one'year following his discharge, -the SO-diay
time shall not begin until the termination of hospitalization (pn. 877O-I).
This hill will now he Sent to the President.
4. APPROPRIATIONS. Received from the President a proposal to increase -by $13, 000, COO
the limitation on expenditures under the 1944 program of soil-building practices
and" soil and water-conservation practices established in the fourth proviso
clause of the 1944 “Conservation' and use of agricultural land resources'.' ap¬
propriation. This increase in limitation does not require the appropriation of
any additional funds, and was proposed because participation of farmers in the
program, particularly in the Southern Region, was grea.ter than had been antici¬
pated.. Unless the limitation is. increased, conservation practice payments will
have to be reduced below the announced rates. (H. Doc. 793*) Appropriations
Committee, (p. 8772.) ‘ .
Received from the President supplemental appropriation estimates for pay¬
ment of judgments rendered hy the U. S, district courts (H. Doc. 790), judg¬
ments rendered hy the Court of Claims (E. Doc. 797) » claims allowed hy G-AD
(H. Doc. 799) » and payments of claims for damages to privately owned property
(H. Doc. SOO). Tcf Appropriations Committee, (p. 8772.)
SENATE
5. ROAD- AUTHORIZATION BILL. Sens. McKellar, Hayden, Bailey, Reed, and Langer were
appointed conferees (p. 8739)* House conferees have. not yet "been appointed.
6. NOMINATION. Confirmed, 68-1, the nomination of Edward R. Stettinius to he
Secretary of State (pp. 8716-3S, 875^). During discussion of the nomination,
Sens. Langer, N. Dak., and Aiken, Vt., discussed the St. Lawence Seaway and
Missouri Basin with respect to transportation, electrification, and irrigation,
and Sen. Langer inserted excerpts from 'letters and speeches indicating Morgan
and Company's opposition to these projects (pu. 8722-36)..
7. TRANSPORTATION; LAND-GRANTS. Agreed to have printed Sen. Reed's (Kans.) indivi¬
dual views on H, R. 4184, to repehl land-grant rates for military and naval
traffic (H. Rept. 1208, pt. 2) (p. 8716).
%
8. ELOOD CONTROL. Continued dehate on H. R. 4485, the flood-control hill (up. 8740-
53) r
Debated the Murray (Mont.) amendment to transfer the civilian construction
functions of the Army engineers, in the Nest, to the Bureau 'of Reclamation
(pp. ''8740-53). ' : ■
■ITEMS IN APPENDIX
9. ROAD AUTHORIZATIONS. Speech in the House hy Rep. Ahernethy, Miss., in support
of his amendment (agreed to Nov. 29) to increase the authorization for national
park roads and trails from $15,0Q0,000 to $30*000, 000 (pp. A4907“^).
10. INFLATION, Rep. Patman, Tex., commended the . inflation-control program and
inserted the President’s letter on this subject and k Washington Post article
on owl’s statement '’’that runaway boom on farm values is feared" (pp. A4913“^) •
11. PRICE CONTROL. Sen. Capper, Kans., inserted Price Administrator Bowles’ Nation¬
al Grange- speech on OPA' s efforts do aid "Earmers in the War" (pp. A4919-22) .
12. .EO REIGN TRADE. Extension of remarks of Rep. Robertson, Va. , including a Nation¬
al Planning Association’s report, urging international cooperation in the
discuss-ion and planning for post-war foreign trad,e.(pp. A4922-3) .
13. STATE PAIRS. Extension of remarks of Rep. Gillie, Ind., urging the "return of
■ State fair grounds by the Eederal Government," and stating that '!the continued
welfare of our uurebred livestock industry is greatly d eperident on the ‘
resumption of our State fairs" (pp. A4923-4).,
BILLS INTRODUCED
14. TOBACCO: BUREAUCRACY. Hy Rop. Jennings, Tonn,, .a. R. 55^2, "relrting to hurley
tobacco of the 1944 and 1945 crop." Reu. JennirHCS stated that the purpose of
the bill is "to ■'revent the. bureaucrat? from taking away from the [’tobacco]
farmers what they have earned" (pp. A490S) . To Agriculture. Committee’, (p.8773*)
1944
8739
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
So the nomination of Edward R. Stet-
tinius, Jr., to be Secretary of State was
confirmed.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the President
be immediately notified of the confirma¬
tion of the nomination of Mr. Stettinius.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection.' The Chair hears none, and
the President will be notified forthwith.
FOREIGN SERVICE
The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Maj. Gen. Patrick Hurley to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni¬
potentiary of the United States of Amer¬
ica to China.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I
move that the nomination of Gen. Pat¬
rick J. Hurley as Ambassador to China
be confirmed.
The motion was agreed to and the
nomination was confirmed.
POSTMASTERS
The legislative clerk proceed to read
sundry nominations of postmasters.
Mr. HILL. I ask unanimous consent
that the postmasters be confirmed en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations are confirmed
en bloc.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask unan¬
imous consent that the President be no¬
tified forthwith of all confirmations of
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the President will be imme¬
diately notified.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I move that
the Senate proceed to the consideration
of legislative business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration
of legislative business.
MEETING OP SENATE BANKING AND
CURRENCY COMMITTEE
Mr. WAGNER. Mr. President, I an¬
nounce that the Banking and Currency
Committee is continuing its hearings on
very important matters, and I hope all
members of the Banking and Currency
Committee will at once return to the
committee room.
SETTLEMENT OP ACCOUNTS OP DE¬
CEASED OFFICERS AND ENUSTED MEN
OP THE ARMY
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate the amendment of the House
of Representatives to the bill (S. 1795) to
amend that portion of the act approved
June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 697, 750) , author¬
izing the settlement of accounts of de¬
ceased officers and enlisted men of the
Army, which was to strike out all after
the enacting clause and insert:
That the portion of the act entitled “An
act making appropriations for sundry civil
expenses of the Government for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1907, and for other
purposes”, approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat.
697, 750; 10 U. S. C. 868), relating to the
settlement of accounts of deceased officers
and enlisted men of the Army, which reads:
“Hereafter, in the settlement of the ac¬
counts of deceased officers or enlisted men of
the Army, where the amount due the de¬
cedent’s estate Is less than $500 and no de¬
mand is presented by a fully appointed legal
representative of the estate, the accounting
officers may allow the amount found due to
the decedent’s widow or legal heirs in the
following order of precedence: First, to the
widow: second. If decedent left no widow,
or the widow be dead at time of settlement,
then to the children or their issue, per
stirpes; third, if no widow or decendants,
then to the father and mother in equal
parts, provided the father has not abandoned
the support of his family, in which case to
the mother alone; fourth, if either the father
or mother be dead then to the one surviving;
fifth, if there be no widow, child, father, or
mother at the date of settlement, then to tlte
brothers and sisters and children of deceased
brothers and sisters, per stirpes: Provided,
That this act shall not be so construed as to
prevent payment from the amount due the
decedent’s estate of funeral expenses, pro¬
vided a claim therefor is presented by the
person or persons who actually paid the same
before settlement by the accounting officers”,
is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Hereafter, in the settlement of the ac¬
counts of deceased officers or enlisted men
of the Army, where the amount due the de¬
cedent’s estate is less than $1,000 and no
demand is presented by a duly appointed
legal representative of the estate, the ac¬
counting officers may allow the amount
found due to the decedent’s widow or legal
heirs in the following order of precedence:
First, to the widow; second, if decedent left
no widow, or the widow be dead at time of
settlement, then to the children or their
issue, per stirpes; third, if no widow or de¬
scendants, then to the father and mother in
equal parts, provided the father has not
abandoned the support of his family, in
which case to the mother alone; fourth, if
either the father or mother be dead, then
to the one surviving; fifth, if there be no
widow, child, father, or mother at the date
of settlement, then to the brothers and sis¬
ters and children of deceased brothers and
sisters, per stirpes. Where the amount due
the decedent’s estate is $1,000 or more and
no demand is presented by a duly ap¬
pointed legal representative of the estate,’
the accounting officers may allow $1,000 of
the amount due to the estate to the widow
or legal heirs in the order of precedence
hereinabove set forth. Provided, That this
act shall not be so construed as to prevent
payment frorn, the amount due the decedent’s
estate of funeral expenses, provided a claim
therefor Is presented by the person or per¬
sons who actually paid the same before
settlement by the accounting officers.”
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, this bill
simply changes the law of 1906, which
provided that when a member of the
armed services died or was killed in the
service, his widow or legal heirs could
collect up to $500 from the General Ac¬
counting OflOce, without going to the ex¬
pense and delay of having an adminis¬
tration of the estate, and having an
executor or ■administrator appointed.
What the bill does is to change that law
so as to raise the amount from $500 to
$1,000. The bill does not involve any
claim against the Government. It in¬
volves merely the collection by the widow
or legal heirs of the pay which the Gov¬
ernment of the United States owes the
widow or legal heirs, and is designed to
save the expense and delay of issuing let¬
ters of administration.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr, HILL. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. As I understand, this
bill relates only to the disposal by the
proper authorities of the Government of
accrued pay owing to the member of the
armed forces.
Mr. HILL. The Senator is correct.
I move that the Senate concur in the
House amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
FEDERAL AID FOR POST-WAR HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Stewart in the chair) laid before the
Senate the amendment of the House of
Representatives to the bill (S. 2105) to
amend and supplement the Federal-Aid
Road Act, approved July 11, 1916, as
amended and supplemented, to author¬
ize appropriations for the post-war con¬
struction of highways and bridges, to
eliminate hazards at railroad-grade
crossings, to provide for the immediate
preparation of plans, and for other pur¬
poses.
Mr. McKELLAR. I move that the
Senate disagree to the amendment of the
House, ask a conference with the House
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses thereon, and that the Chair ap¬
point the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding OfScer appointed Mr. McKel-
LAR, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Reed,
and Mr. Lancer conferees on the part of
the Senate.
OLIVER N. KNIGHT
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate the amendment of the House
of Representatives to the bill (S. 1827)
for the relief of Oliver N. Knight, which
was, on page 1, line 6, to strike out “$20,-
442,16” and insert “$22,992.16.”
Mr. ELLENDER. I move that the
Senate concur in the House amendment.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator indicate just what the amend¬
ment is?
Mr. ELLENDER. The House has in¬
creased an allowance made by the Claims
Committee, by about $2,000, and I now
move that the Senate concur in the
House amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ELLENDER subsequently said:
Mr. President, a while ago I moved that
the Senate concur in the amendment of
the House to Senate bill 1827, an act for
the relief of Oliver N. Knight. That was
made by me vmder a misapprehension of
the facts in the case.
I have consulted the distinguished
senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Bailey], who originally introduced the
bill, and he has no objection to the mo¬
tion which I am about to make.
I now move to reconsider the vote by
which the Senate concurred in the House
amendment, that the Senate ask for a
conference with the House thereon, and
that the Chair appoint conferees on the
part of the Senate.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr, ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. LANGER. What is the nature of
the bill?
Mr. ELLENDER. The bill concerns a
claim for the relief of Oliver N. Knight,
No. 166 - 1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 30
8740
v.’hoae entire family was wiped out in an
airplane- accident.
Mr. LANGER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. • The
Question is agreeing" to the motion of the
Senator from Louisiana.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer (Mr. Maybank in the
chair) appointed Mr. Ellender, Mr.
Stewart, and Mr. Robertson conferees
on the part of the Senate.
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, I
have received a telegram from the presi¬
dent of the Wisconsin Farmers Union re¬
lating to the flood-control and rivers
and harbors bill, which at his request I
ask be inserted In the Record as a part of
my remarks.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
Chippewa Falls, Wis., November 28, 1944.
Senator Robert M. La Follette,
Senate Office Building:
Present flood-control and rivers and har¬
bors bill should be delayed until next ses¬
sion. They do not fulflll needs of people.
Both M. V. A. and St. Lawrence waterway
projects as now proposed a waste of public
funds to serve all the people. Wisconsin
Farmers Union on record for a complete pro¬
gram in development of natural resources
that will serve farmers and others to the
fullest utilization of projects. Insert in Con¬
gressional Record.
Wisconsin Farmers Union,
K. W. Hones, State President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Mon¬
tana [Mr. Murray], at the end of sec¬
tion 29 line 19, page 2, of the bill, to in¬
sert new matter.
The amendment of Mr. Murray is as
follows:
At the end of section 2, line 19, page 2,
insert : "Provided, That all functions, pow¬
ers, duties, and projects of the Secretary of
War, the Chief of Engineers, and the Corps
of Engineers with respect to the examina¬
tion, survey, construction, operation, and
maintenance of western water conservation
reservoirs owned or controlled by the Fed¬
eral Government, or with respect to any
works of improvement appurtenant to such
reservoirs, whether heretofore, herein, or
hereafter authorized for examination, sur¬
vey, construction, operation, or maintenance,
are hereby transferred to the Secretary of
the Interior and shall be administered, un¬
der his direction and supervision, by the
Bureau of Reclamation in the Department
of the Interior. Tlie term ‘western water
conservation reservoirs’ as used in this sec-’
tion shall be deemed to Include all reservoirs
which are used, or capable of being used, in
whole or in part for the conservation, stor¬
age, or detention of water, including flood
.control, or for the reclamation of arid or
semlarld lands, and which are located in
the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ore¬
gon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washing¬
ton, and Wyoming: Provided, further. That
all records and property (including office
equipment, machinery, supplies, facilities,
contracts, and assets of every kind, but ex¬
cluding property needed in the conduct of
military operations) used primarily in the
administration of any such functions, pow¬
ers, duties, and projects shall be transferred
to the Department of the Interior for use
in connection with the administration of
said functions, powers, duties, and projects;
Provided further. That all civilian personnel
engaged primarily in the administration of
any such functions, powers, duties, and
projects shall be transferred to the Depart¬
ment' of the Interior for use in connection
with the administration of such functions,
powers, duties, and projects. Any of the
civilian personnel transferred under this
section who are found by the Secretary of
the Interior to be in excess of the personnel
necessary for efficient administration of the
activities covered by this section shall be
retransferred under existing law to other
positions in the Government service or shall
be separated from the service. Any person
whose employment is terminated on account
of a reduction of personnel resulting from
the operation of this order shall, for a period
of 1 year from the date of such termination
of employment, be given preference, if qual¬
ified, whenever an appointment is made in
the executive branch of the Government:
Provided further, That so much of the un¬
expended balances of appropriations, au¬
thorizations, allocations, or other funds
heretofore or hereafter made available for
use in the administration of any of the func¬
tions, powers, duties, and projects transferred
by this section (Including appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, or other funds
available for general departmental or staff
services used in the administration of any
such activity) as shall be determined, upon
the basis of the pertinent legislative, budget¬
ary, and administrative apportionments, to
be properly subject to utilization in the ad¬
ministration of such functions, powers,
duties, or projects shall be transferred to
the Department of the Interior for use in
connection with the administration of the
functions, powers, duties, and projects trans¬
ferred by this section. The moneys so trans¬
ferred may include amounts to provide for
the liquidation of obligations incurred
against such appropriations, authorizations,
allocations, or other funds prior to the trans¬
fer. No moneys transferred under this pro¬
vision shall be expended for purposes other
than those for which such moneys were ap¬
propriated or otherwise originally made avail¬
able, except to the extent to which their
expenditure for other purposes may be au¬
thorized by law: Provided further. That
nothing contained in this section shall im¬
pair the validity of any outstanding obliga¬
tions or 'contracts of the United States of
America or of any department, establish¬
ment, or agency thereof: Provided further,
That all rules, regulations, orders, permits,
licenses, privileges, or other like matters
made, issued, or granted in pursuance of,
or with respect to, any function, power, duty,
or project transferred by this section which
are in effect at the time of such transfer
shall continue in effect to the same extent
as if such transfer had not occurred until
modified, superseded, or repealed: Provided
further. That the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget shall take such action as may be
necessary or appropriate for the effectuation
of the transfers provided for herein, and
shall prescribe the date or dates on which
such transfers shall become effective. His
determinations with respect to the proper
allocation of the records, property, person¬
nel, and funds referred to in said sections
shall, when approved by the President, be
final for the purposes of this ac,t.”
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, last
evening I was about to explain the
amendment. It will have the effect of
transferring the civilian construction
functions and activities of the Corps of
Engineers in the West to the Bureau
of Reclamation. I will undertake to ex¬
plain as briefly as possible why such an
amendment is needed.
This ac'tion is needed first of all for
the protection of all interests in the
western part of our country against the
inroads of a Federal agency which by
law is not required to obey State stat¬
utes. Acting under the authority of the
commerce clause of the Constitution, the
Corps of Engineers can and does invade
the West, interferes with vested rights
in water, and otherwise plays havoc with
State rights. On the other hand, the
Bureau of Reclamation is required by
Federal law to observe the State laws
governing water rights.
The economy of the arid and seml-
arid areas of the West is dependent upon
the establishment and recognition of
the fundamental concept that waters
arising in the West shall remain avail¬
able for beneficial consumptive uses in
the West. The whole future of the West
depends on recognition of this policy.
In recognition of this policy, and to fa¬
cilitate administration and development
of the water resources of the West, the
Western States have developed through
the years, by constitutional and statu¬
tory provisions and through the deci¬
sions of their courts, certain rules gov¬
erning rights in water. If the Corps of
Engineers of the United States Army is
authorized by the pending flood-control
bill to undertake the projects it has in
mind in the West, then the West will, in
effect, have surrendered to a large ex¬
tent the dominion which it now exercises
over its own water resources.
The authority of the Corps of Engi¬
neers to proceed with these projects will
depend, of course, upon the enactment
of H. R. 4485. The authority of the
Congress to enact H. R. 4435 derives from
the commerce clause of the Constitution
of the United States. Under the com¬
merce clause of the United States Con¬
stitution, the Federal Government may
proceed with navigation and flood-con¬
trol developments without regard to the
impairment or even the complete oblit¬
eration of rights for irrigation or other
beneficial uses established under State
law and even without compensating for
the rights so impaired or so taken. That
statement is made on the authority of a
series of decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the following
cases: Sanitary District of Chicago v.
United States (266 U. S. 405 (1925) ) ;
United States v. Chandler -Dunhar Co.
(299 U. S. 53 (1913)); Scranton v.
Wheeler (179 U. S. 141 (1900) ) ; United
States V. Rio Grande Irrigation Co. (174
U. ’S. 690 (1899)); Gibson v. United
States (166 U S. 269 (1897) ) .
There can be no doubt whatsoever, on
the basis of the cases decided by the
highest court in the land, that the Corps
of Engineers can, if it wishes to do so,
proceed with the construction, opera¬
tion, and maintenance of the works
which it seeks authority to construct,
entirely without regard to existing water
rights, whether they be riparian or ap-
propriative rights established under the
Constitution and laws of a State. It is
said that the Corps of Engineers has
1944
8741
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
given asstu’ances to some of the people
that it will not violate existing water
rights. But how much are these assur¬
ances worth? What basis have we for
believing that the promise to observe ex¬
isting water rights, if such a promise
has been made, will be kept even by the
present Chief of Engineers whose con¬
sistent opposition to having such a
promise written into law is a clear indi¬
cation of his views? Such a promise
would not be binding even on him and
much less on his successors in office.
This promise, if one has been made, is
worth little or nothing in the face of
the absolute power which the Corps of
Elngineers will have, if it undertakes
these projects, to seize, without com¬
pensation, any water rights which it may
need for the purposes of its projects.
It is said that one reason for author¬
izing the Corps of Engineers to under¬
take tliese works is that the portion of
the costs of those projects, which will
have to be repaid by local beneficiaries,
v;ill be less than the portion that will
’have to be repaid if some other agency
constructs the worlcs. But, even if con¬
struction by the Corps of Engineers
would cost the local irrigators less, such
saving would be mighty poor compen-
, sation for a surrender of established
water rights. The whole proposition
sounds like surrendering a birthright for
a mess of pottage.
The West can have the benefits of
Federal construction of conservation
reservoirs — reservoirs that will serve
also the purposes of flood control and
navigation improvement — without sur¬
render of water rights established under
the Constitution and laws of the States,
if and only if one agency is authorized to
proceed with the construction of the
necessary works. Under existing condi¬
tions, that agency should be such an
agency as the Missouri Valley Authority,
as recommended by the President in his
recent letter to Congress.
Aside from the many other reasons for
the proposition that the West should re¬
sist with all its might the proposed in¬
vasion of its territory by the Army en¬
gineers, one is particularly impressed
with the protection to State water rights
which would come from having every
part of the Federal conservation program
in the West constructed by the Bureau of
Reclamation. That protection arises out
of a provision contained in the funda¬
mental statute under which Federal
reclamation projects have been con¬
structed for the last 40 years. I refer to
section 8 of the act of June 17, 1902,
commonly known as the Reclamation
Act. That section reads as follows :
That nothing in this act shall be construed
as effective or intended to affect or toUn any
way interfere with the laws of any State or
Territory relating to the control, appropria¬
tion, use, or distribution of water used in
irrigation, or any vested right acquired there¬
under, and the Seci-etary of the Interior, in
carrying out the provisions of this act, shall
proceed in conformity with such laws, and
nothing herein shaU in any way affect any
right of any State or of the Federal Govern¬
ment or of any landowner, appropriator, or
"user of water in, to, or from any interstate
stream or the waters thereof : Provided, That
the fight to the use of water acquired under
the provisions of this act shall be appur¬
tenant to the land Irrigated and beneficial
use shall be the basis, the measure, and the
limit of the right.
The foregoing section of the Federal
reclamation law does not pay merely lip
service. It works. Pursuant to that
section, the Bureau of Reclamation
makes a filing, with the agency of the
State having jurisdiction, looking to an
appropriation of water. If, in a particu¬
lar case, the waters of a stream are al¬
ready fully appropriated and the flood
flows are already fully appropriated,
then the Bureau of Reclamation pur¬
chases water rights from prior appro-
priators. This practice it has followed
in connection with the Central Valley
project. For example, under a contract
entered into as of July 27, 1939, between
the United States and the firm of Miller
& Lux, Inc., and the Gravelly Ford Canal
Co., and others, the United States ac¬
quired the appropriative and riparian
rights of these companies to divert and
use the waters of the San Joaquin River
and the Fre.sno slough for the irrigation
of land, the watering of livestock and for
other purposes. The consideration
agreed to be paid for the water rights
thus acquired is specified in the contract
at 82,450,000.
Under a contract dated July 27, 1939,
the United States acquired from the San
Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irri¬
gation Co., Inc., the Columbia Canal Co.,
the San Luis Canal Co., and the Fire-
baugh Canal Co. the 'right to store cer¬
tain San Joaquin River flows in consid¬
eration of its agreement to construct and
operate a pumping system to bring sub¬
stitute supplies of water into certain
cropland .areas. Under this arrange¬
ment, the cropland areas obtain a sub¬
stitute and a more dependable supply of
water for their cropland areas.
Under a contract entered into on Octo¬
ber 2, 1939, the United States acquired
from the Chowchilla Farms, Inc., the
perpetual right to divert, store, and use
all the waters of the San Joaquin River
and its tributaries to the use of which
Chowchilla Farms, Inc., was entitled for
a consideration of $842,000.
Under a contract dated January 29,
1940, the United States acquired certain
lands and certain water rights from the
Madera Irrigation District for a consid¬
eration including the payment of
$279,900.
In the same circumstances, had the
Army engineers been constructing the
Central Valley project, they would not
have been obliged to make these pur¬
chases, but could have utilized the waters
in question without the expenditure of
one penny for reimbursing the owners
thereof.
Aside from protection of western water
rights, there are good, sound national
reasons for transferring the civilian con¬
struction functions of the Corps of Engi¬
neers to the Bureau of Reclamation.
First of all, such a transfer would pro¬
tect the country against the growth of
a military oligarchy, impertinent and un¬
mindful of civilian rights. I think, in
this connection, of the statement by
General Robbins, at one of the sessions
of the subcommittee of the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. Overton], to the effect
that the amendment proposed by Sena¬
tor O’Mahoney — to protect the beneficial
consumptive use of water against the
demands of navigation — was “crazy.”
Apparently the Army engineers have
decided that they will accept the “crazy”
amendment rather than take a chance
on losing their opportunity to construct
these “pork barrel” projects.
I may say at this point, Mr. President,
that during the course of the debate it
was suggested on the floor of the Senate
that I had failed to appear before any
of the committees considering this legis¬
lation and make objections to this bill
at the time it was under consideration.
I wish to say that that is not true. As
early as February 1944 I appeared before
the House Committee on Flood Control,
when the bill was under hearings before
that committee, and testified at some
length on that occasion. I then pre¬
sented the amendment which was sug¬
gested by the President of the United
States to protect the water rights of the
unper States in the Missouri Valley.
That testimony will be found on page
934 of the House hearings, volume II,
February 1 to February 23, 1944. The
amendment which I suggested at that
time is found on page 934, and reads as
follows:
Page 21, line 13, after the word “Congress”,
substitute a colon for the semicolon and
insert the words, “Provided, That the use
of waters of the Missouri River for municipal, .
domestic, and livestock water supply, for
irrigation of arid and semiarid lands, and
for mining and Industrial purposes shall not
be adversely affected thereby.”
In connection with the proposal of the
amendment, I stated as follows:
I believe all the advocates of the naviga¬
tion project contend that the 9-foot channel
will not interfere with future irrigation up¬
stream. I am sure, then, that they can have
no legitimate objection to such a statement
in the bill as that worded by the President.
At the same hearing before the House
committee I also suggested the other
amendment, with reference to electric
power. That will be found on page 935,
and reads as follows:
Page 29, line 12, add the following new
paragraphs at the end of section 1 :
“Electric power and energy generated at
projects authorized by this act and rot re¬
quired in the operation of such projects shall
be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior,
who shall transmit and dispose of such
power and energy in such manner as to en¬
courage the most widespread use thereof at
the lowest possible rates to consumers, and
preference in the sale of such power and
energy shall be given to public bodies and
cooperatives. At dams or works authorized
by this act which are suitable for the pro¬
duction of electric power and energy the
Secretary of War shall provide, const’-uct,
operate, maintain, and improve su-h struc¬
tures, machinery, equipment, facilities, and
supplies as the Secretary of the Interior may
deem necessary to develop power and energy
for existing and potential markets and for
the proper reception, handling, and di~patch
of electric power and energy: and operations
of all such machinery and facilities shall be
scheduled in accordance with the require¬
ments of the Secretary of the Interior so far
as consistent with requirements for the use
of water for the other purposes of said
projects. The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to construct and acquire such
transmission lines and facilities and to enter
November 30
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
8743
Into such contracts, agreements, and ar¬
rangements as he deems necessary to carry
out the duties and responsibilities herein
conferred upon him.
“In connection with dams or works au¬
thorized by this act which the Secretary of
the Interior determines, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of War, may be utilized for
irrigation purposes, the Secretary of the In¬
terior is authorized to construct, operate,
and maintain, under the provisions of the
Federal reclamation laws (act of June 17,
1902, 32 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory
thereof or supplementary thereto), such ad¬
ditional works as he may deem necessary for
Irrigation purposes. Such irrigation works
may be undertaken only after a report and
findings thereon have been made by the Sec¬
retary of the Interior as provided in said
Federal reclamation laws; and, within the
limits of the water users’ repayment ability,
such report may be predicated on the alloca¬
tion to irrigation of an appropriate portion
of the cost of structures and facilities used
for irrigation and other purposes. Dam and
works authorized by this act may be utilized
for irrigation purposes only in conformity
with the provisions of said Federal reclama¬
tion laws and this paragraph.”
Mr. President, both those amendments
were presented before the committee
while this legislation was pending in the
House, but they were rejected by the en¬
gineers at that time. Apparently the
Army engineers have now decided that
they will accept these amendments,
rather than take a chance on losing their
opportunity to construct these projects.
Then, again, such a transfer will give
the West assurance that the fundamen¬
tal interests of the West in irrigation and
incidental power will be given adequate
treatment. It will protect the West
against the construction of works whose
primary function seems to be to carry
fresh water to the sea — this in a land
where every drop of fresh water should
be stored for beneficial consumptive use.
Finally, a transfer, such as my amend¬
ment provides for, is needed for efficient
adihinistration in Washington, Even
with the best will in the world conflicts
are inevitable if you have two agencies
operating in the same fleld. Congress
should take cognizance of the fact that
it has itself to blame for much of the con¬
flict and confusion which have arisen in
connection with navigation, flood control,
and irrigation. Although these three
items involve — when performed in the
West — the maximum conservation of
water for beneficial consumptive use, we
have too many committees dealing with
them. In the House we have the Com¬
mittee on Flood Control, the Committee
on Rivers and Harbors, the Committee
on Agriculture, the Committee on irriga¬
tion and Reclamation. In the Senate, we
have the Committee on Irrigation and
Reclamation, the Committee on Com¬
merce, and the Committee on Agricul¬
ture and Forestry. In the name of sim¬
plification and economy we ought at least
to reduce the number of committees
which may consider these matters. By
virtue particularly of the practice exist¬
ing on the House side, there is an un¬
usual relationship between a portion of
the ex utive branch and the Congress.
For instance, if notwithstanding the
views of the President and of the Bureay.
of the Budget, the Chief of Engineers
desires to submit a report on a particular
project, he resorts to the simple practice
of requesting, informally of course, a
resolution from an appropriate commit¬
tee requesting his report on that project.
The relations between the Chief of Engi¬
neers and certain committees of the Con¬
gress have grown so close tha^ the Chief
of Engineers regards himself as unable
to make joint investigations with other
agencies. Thus, the saving of time and
money which would result from joint in¬
vestigations is lost to the country because
the Corps of Engineers must make an
exclusive report.
Finally, our confusion of committees
is so great that we And the Bureau of
Reclamation submitting substantially the
same testimony with regard to its plans
for the Missouri River Basin on no less,
than three occasions — once, before the
subcommittee of the Senate Committee
on Commerce studying the river and har¬
bor bill; again, before the subcommittee
of the Senate Committee on Commerce
studying the flood control bill; and,
again, before the Senate Committee on
Irrigation and Reclamation. Such a pro¬
cedure is an extravagant expenditure of
time and money both in the legislative
and executive branches.
Mr. President, I am sure very few Sen¬
ators are familiar with the broad outlines
of the projects which would be author¬
ized for construction by the Army engi¬
neers under and by virtue of the language
of the provisions on page 31 of the bill.
I call attention to the reference, in line
17, page 31, to House Document No. 649,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session.
I wonder how many Senators have read
House Document No. 649. I wonder if
the Senate realizes how ipany dams
would be authorized for construction by
this one item alone. Note that the esti¬
mated cost of the projects described in
House Document No. 649 is $50,100,000.
I assume that a project which is esti¬
mated to cost over $50,000,000, and which
in all probability will cost considerably
more, is not the sort of project which the
Senate would wish to approve unless it
knew the facts and was, therefore," in a
position to determine whether the au¬
thorization and construction of the proj¬
ect represented sound national policy and
a wise expenditure of public funds. I
shall therefore ask the Senate to Indulge
me while I discuss as briefly as possible
the salien features of the projects repre¬
sented by this item and the important
questions of national policy involved.
In the first place, I believe I should
call attention to the fact that the basic
document upon which authorization of
this project would be predicated does not
represent the last word of the Chief of
Engineers. The Chief of Engineers him¬
self refers to his report on the Sacramen¬
to River and tributaries as an “interim”
report. Webster’s New International
Dictionary, second edition, defines the
term “interim” as “belonging to an in¬
terim, done, made, occurring, etc., for
an interim or meantime; temporary.”
We are thus faced with the proposition
that the report on the basis of which the
Congress is asked to authorize the appro¬
priation of more than $50,000,000 is de¬
scribed by its author as an “interim” or
I temporary document. There can be only
one reason for so describing it. That
reason must lie in the fact that he lacks
confidence in the conclusions drawn from
the studies and surveys so far made, and
that, therefore, he wishes to reserve the
right to change those conclusions in
whatever ways that facts developed from
more thorough studies and surveys may
indicate to be desirable. I can scarcely
believe that the Congress will wish to
authorize appropriations in excess of
$50,000,000 on the basis of any recom¬
mendation which is labeled as one that
is likely to be changed. I believe, on the
contrary, that in these days of rapidly
mounting national debt, the Congress
will wish to exercise greater care. I be- '
lieve that on this item the Congress
should say to the Chief of Engineers that
it is not prepared to authorize the appro¬
priation of vast sums on the basis of
hastily prepared and perhaps superficial
studies. I hope and believe that, by
eliminating this item from the bill, the
•Congress will say to the Chief of Engi¬
neers: “We will not let you draw on the
Treasury for funds to build a project
until and unless you can assure us that
in your judgment the project you have
proposed is the final and best plan you
can devise for the purpose you have in
mind.”
Not only is the report of the Chief of
Engineers, on the basis of which the Con¬
gress is asked to appropriate millions of
dollars, a temporary report, but it is also
a report which conflicts with the views
of the President. I shall have something
more to say on this point at a later time.
For the time being, let me call the atten¬
tion of the Senate to a letter addressed
to the Secretary of War on May 22, by
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
This is a letter of comment by the Direc¬
tor of the Bureau of the Budget on the
“interim” or temporary report referred
to in line 17 of the flood-control bill. I
read it:
My Dear Mr. Secretary: This will ac¬
knowledge your letter of May 15, 1944, trans¬
mitting the proposed report of the Chief
of Engineers, dated May 10, 1944, on a pre¬
liminary examination and survey for flood
control of the Sacramento River and tribu¬
taries, California, from its mouth to Shasta
Dam, and requesting advice as to the rela¬
tionship of the proposed report to the pro¬
gram of the President.
A review of this proposed report indicates
that the adoption of the general plan of de¬
velopment recommended therein for further
improvement of the Sacramento River and
its tributaries, upon the basis of the con¬
struction, operation, and maintenance under
the direction of the Secretary of War and
supervision of the Chief of Engineers of
some elements of that general plan, would
be In conflict with the program of the Pres¬
ident for the Central Valley of California
as set forth in his letter of March 7, 1944,
to the chairman, Committee on Flood Con¬
trol, House of Representatives. There would,
of course, be no objection to a modification
of the existing Sacramento River flood-con¬
trol project to provide for changes and ex¬
tensions in levees and other structures, and
for the construction of nine local levee and
channel improvements, as recommended in
this proposed report of the Chief of Engi¬
neers. However, the dam and reservoir proj¬
ects that are recommended by the Chief of
Engineers are component units in a basin¬
wide plan for the use and control of the
water resources in the Central Valley. The
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944
President has stated In his letter of March
7, 1944, that it would appear that, if any
such plan is to be successful, the operation
of all units should be fully coordinated on
a regional basis and that such coordination.
Insofar as projects undertaken by the Fed¬
eral Government are concerned, can best be
obtained if the Bureau of Reclamation con¬
structs, operates, and maintains all multi¬
ple-purpose elements of the Central Valley
plan.
P\irthermore, it would appear desirable
that, in view of the differences of opinion
that have been expressed, the authorization
of the construction of any dam* at the Table
Mountain site be deferred pending the com¬
pletion of investigations, now being made by
the Bureau of Reclamation, to determine the
possibilities of providing alternate equiva¬
lent storage by means of reservoirs on tribu¬
taries of the Sacramento River between
Shasta Dam and the proposed site for the
Table Mountain Dam and Reservoir, and the
completion of the final report by the Chief
of Engineers of the preliminary examination
and survey of the entire Sacramento and
San Joaquin River Valleys.
In addition to what has been said above,
I must also advise you that, in the absence
of evidence showing that the proposed im¬
provements are necessary to the prosecution
of the war, the submission during the pres¬
ent emergency of any estimate of appropria¬
tion for construction of the improvements
would not be in accord with the program of
the President.
In view of their direct concern with the
proposed report, 1 am furnishing copies of
this letter to the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior and to the Chairman, Federal
Power Commission.
Mr. President, what does this letter in¬
dicate? It indicates, first of all, that the
President of the United States has a plan
for the Central Valley area of California.
Secondly, it shows that the, interim or
temporary report made by the Chief of
Engineers is in conflict with that plan.
In the absence of a strong showing that
the plan of the Chief of Engineers — has¬
tily put together and containing conclu¬
sions which the Chief of Engineers him¬
self is not prepared to describe as final —
should be substituted for the long-range
plans of the President of the United
States, I submit that the Senate should
not be asked so to substitute it. I sub¬
mit further, and I am prepared to prove,
that the Committee on Commerce, so far
as its report is concerned, gives little or
no evidence of having considered the
recommendations made by the President
of the United States and by the Bureau
of the Budget in connection with this
item. In this connection I ask Senators
to turn to page 22 of the majority report
submitted by the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Overton], of the Committee on
Commerce, to accompany House bill
4485. Twelve lines are devoted to a dis¬
cussion of the item in question. No¬
where in that discussion does the Com¬
mittee on Commerce even so much as
take note of the fact that the interim
or temporary plan of the Chief of Engi¬
neers is contrary to the wishes of the
Chief Executive. No mention is made of
the letter which I have just read from
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
One very important item is brought out
in those 12 lines, namely, that when the
House approved this item it did not even
have the benefit of the Chief of Engi¬
neer’s interim report. Indeed, this in¬
terim or temporary report of the Chief
of Engineers was not transmitted to
the Congress until 1 day after the sub¬
committee had begun its hearings on the
flood-control bill.
Not only does the report submitted by
the Senator from Louisiana fail to ap¬
prise the Senate of the fact that the
interim or temporary plan of the Chief
of Engineers for this project is in con¬
flict with the plans of the President for
the Central Valley area of California,
but it fails also to apprise the Senate of
the fact that much testimony by skilled
and experienced engineers and others in
opposition to the authorization of this
project for construction by the Army en¬
gineers was submitted to the very sub¬
committee over which the Senator from
Louisiana presided. I do not say that
the failure thus fully to advise the Sen¬
ate was by design; but I do say that busy
Senators are entitled to have their at¬
tention called to controversial items so
that they may, if they are so minded,
refer to the transcript of the testimony
and make up their own minds as to the
way in which the controversy should be
resolved. More than 800 pages of com¬
paratively small print were required to
cover the testimony presented before the
Senate subcommittee in connection with
the flood-control bill. Many of those
pages were devoted to testimony pre¬
sented for and against the interim or
temporary report presented by the Chief
of Engineers in connection with this
project. Yet only 12 lines of the report
submitted by the Senator from Louisiana
deal with the whole vast problem involv¬
ing the expenditure of more than $50,-
000,000. If a Senator were to rely solely
upon the report submitted by the Sena¬
tor from Louisiana he would be led to
believe that this item had been marked
by no controvei'sy whatsoever. As a
matter of fact, testimony taken before
the subcommittee revealed that quali¬
fied engineers and also members of the
general public were opposed to the plans
of the Chief of Engineers as contained
in his interim or temporary report on
this project.
For example, a member of the Cali¬
fornia State Senate, Hon. Oliver J. Car¬
ter, testified at length in opposition to
the project. He was particularly op¬
posed to the authorization of the Table
Mountain Dam. I ask Senators to note
particularly the attempts made by this
witness to bring out the facts respecting
the dam at the Table Mountain site.
Senator Carter came from a long dis¬
tance in an attempt to protect the in¬
terests of his constituents in Shasta and
Trinity Counties, Calif.
Senator Carter gave testimony which
will impress any fair-minded man. He
showed, first, that it was diflBcult for the
general public to know just exactly what
kind and size of dam was proposed to be
built at the Table Mountain site. His
testimony is impressive also on the prop¬
osition that no dam whatsoever should
be 'authorized for construction at the
Table Mountain site. He showed that
even a low dam would result in flooding a
large area of valuable agricultural land.
He showed that the area which would be
flooded as a result of the construction of
the low dam has an annual agricultural
8743
production valued at more than $1,600,-
000. He urged a study of alternative stor¬
age possibilities. Notwithstanding the
fact that this statesman from California
traveled a great distance for the pur¬
pose of coming to Washington to present
the views of the people most affected, and
notwithstanding the fact that he pre¬
sented those views in impressive fashion,
the Senate Committee on Commerce
made no reference to differences of opin¬
ion with respect to the construction of
the Table Mountain Dam.
I have said that qualified engineers tes¬
tified before the subcommittee in oppo¬
sition to this project. Let me elaborate.
Testimony in opposition to this project
was presented by qualified engineers with
national reputations. For example, the
Commissioner of Reclamation himself,
an engineer who has spent a lifetime in
the study, preparation, and working out
of plans for the conservation and the
beneficial consumptive use of water in
17 Western States, gave extensive testi¬
mony in opposition to the authorization
of this project. I realize that there may
be those who will say that Commissioner
Bashore had “an ax to grind.” There
will be those who, not knowing him as
well as do some Senators, will feel that
his testimony may have been colored by
a belief that this project should be built
by the Bureau of Reclamation rather
than by the Corps of Army Engineers.
TO those Senators I am glad to be able
to say that Commissioner Bashore is a
man whose integrity rises above petty
jurisdictional quarrels. He testified as
an engineer. If as an engineer he had
believed that the project described in
the interim report should be built as
proposed in that report, he would have
said so, no matter what the consequences
might have been. His whole career as¬
sures us of that. The Congress and the
Nation can rely upon it.
Among other engineers who testified
against the authorization of this project
for construction by the Army engineers
were the following; Mr. R. S. Calland,
who spent 7 years on the Central Valley
project in California and who, before
that, was assigned throughout the con¬
struction period to the Boulder Dam
project; Mr. S. A. Kerr, an engineer who
has had 37 years of experience in con¬
nection with water-supply projects in the
Western States; and Mr. R. P. Bryan, a
man with 23 years of practical engineer¬
ing experience. No reference to this im¬
pressive testimony is to be found in the
report submitted by the Senator from
Louisiana.
I wish to be entirely fair. I think that
justice requires me to say that much tes¬
timony was offered on all sides of the
controversy which raged before the sub¬
committee over which the Senator from
Louisiana TMr. Overton] presides in con¬
nection with these California pi'ojects.
I think justice requires me to say that
much impressive testimony was pre¬
sented by the proponents of the Army
plan. On the other hand, where there
has existed a serious controversy before
a committee of the Senate in connection
with a particular bill, I think it Is unfair
to the Members of the Senate if they are
not fully apprised of the fact that the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 30
C744
controversy has existed, and If they are
not fully apprised of the principal argu¬
ments against as well as for the measure
which is reported out. To put it another
way, I do not think that the Congress
should be asked to authorize an appro¬
priation in excess of $50,000,000 until and
unless the appropriate committee of the
Congress has fully analyzed and an¬
swered the arguments against the au¬
thorization of such an appropriation.
Mere silence on the part of the commit¬
tee having charge of the bill is not
enough.
I want to know, and I am sure other
Senators want to know, why the Senate
Committee on Commerce decided that
the preponderance of the evidence pre¬
sented to it was in favor of constructing
the project proposed by the Army engi¬
neers in an interim report. Since the
Senate Committee on Commerce has not
favored the Senate with an analysis of
the evidence presented to it and with its
reasons for preferring the plan presented
by the Army engineers to the plans fa¬
vored by the Pi'esident, by the Bureau of
the Budget, and by other agencies, I
shall ask the Senate to bear with me
while I discuss the proposals and coun¬
terproposals made for the Central Val¬
ley area in some detail, so that the Sen¬
ators may have a complete understand¬
ing of it.
The project proposed, according to the
interim or preliminary report of the
Army engineers — a project for which the
Congress is asked to appropriate more
than $50,000,000 — includes the construc¬
tion of seven reservoirs in the -Central
Valley area of California. These reser¬
voirs would be formed respectively by
dams at the following sites : Table Moun¬
tain, Bidwell Bar, Narrows, Folsom, Mon-
ticello, Wilson Valley, and Black Butte.
I have already referred to the Table
Mountain Dam. It may be useful, how¬
ever, to point out that, as proposed in the
interim or preliminary report by the
Army engineers, the Table Mountain
Dam is proposed as a high dam. Its jus¬
tification in the report by the Army en¬
gineers is founded in large part on its
being constructed as a high dam. If the
item proposed by the Senate Committee
on Commerce is adopted, then it can
never be built as a high dam. Hence,
much of the justification for building it
at all disappears.
I want to call the Senate’s attention to
one statement in chapter III of the report
made by the district engineer to the Chief
of Engineers in regard to the Table
Mountain Dam. The statement is as fol¬
lows :
Inundation of present irrigated lands in
the'Table Mountain Reservoir area would re¬
sult in a loss in tax income to the counties
affected, estimated at $.30,000 per annum for
the low dam and approximately $90,000 per
annum for the high dam, and would detri¬
mentally affect existing business and com¬
mercial activity in the community of Red¬
ding, which is now dependent for a large part
cf its income upon the activities of this agri¬
cultural area. Such detrimental effect on
local business, or the loss in taxes from in¬
undation of lands in the other proposed res¬
ervoirs, has not been evaluated herein as it is
considered that it would be more than bal¬
anced by similar unevaluated local benefits
In other parts of the valley.
That statement bears out the testi¬
mony presented by Senator Carter as to
the serious damage that would be done to
the area he so ably represents in the Cali¬
fornia Senate if the Table Mountain Dam
is constructed. I might say that Senator
Carter is a State senator of California,
who appeared ajid testified in this mat¬
ter.
The last sentence of that statement is
^ne of the most remarkable sentences I
have ever read in any public document.
To my mind, it is equivalent to saying,
“We do not know what damage will be
done to the local people by the construc¬
tion of the other proposed reservoirs, but
regardless of the extent of the damage to
those people, we feel sure that it will be
more than compensated for by the bene¬
fits which people in other localities will
derive from the reservoirs. We have not
figured out what those benefits may be.”
In fact, this statement reminds me very
much of a foreword which it is said ap¬
peared on the cover page of a prospectus
of one of the Dublin expositions many
years ago. That forev/ord is said to have
read as follows: “All statements made in
this prospectus are based on facts and
figures, but the visitors are cautioned
against being influenced thereby.” How
can the Congress be expected to author¬
ize the appropriation of more than $50,-
000,000 for a project on the basis of a re¬
port which deals so cavalierly with the
question of damage that may be done to
local property owners, end which sug¬
gests that that damage will be compen¬
sated for by benefits which, it admits
frankly, have not been computed?
Much impressive testimony was pre¬
sented to Senator Overton’s subcommit¬
tee on the proposition that this project,
among other projects proposed for con¬
struction by the Army engineers irt Cali¬
fornia, was in all major respects a logi¬
cal extension of the Central Valley
project now authorized for construction
by the Bureau of Reclamation. I think
that at this point it may be worth while
to consider some aspects of the Central
Valley project and its purposes, so that
the Senators may have a full apprecia¬
tion of the significance of the testimony
to which I have referred.
The Central Valley project compre¬
hends, among its purposes, the control,
regulation, conservation, conveyance, and
use of portions of the waters of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys for
the maximum benefit of the entire area.
Some engineering features of the Cen¬
tral Valley project are already author¬
ized by law for present development.
Others will presumably be authorized by
law for development in the future to
the extent deemed desirable by the Con¬
gress. The initial and the presently au¬
thorized features of the Central Valley
project Include the following: Shasta
Dam, Reservoir, and power plant on the
Sacramento River 12 miles north of Red¬
ding; Keswick Dam and power plant on
the Sacramento Rivfer about 9 miles
downstream from Shasta Dam; trans¬
mission lines from Shasta and Keswick
power plants to Oroville and to Antioch,
or alternate location; Cross channel from
Sacramento River to San Joaquin River
through the edge of their common delta
near Stockton; Contra Costa Canal and
pumping system, about 48 miles long,
from Rock Slough to Martinez; Delta-
Mendota Canal and pumping system,
length 100 miles, from the San Joaquin
Delta to Mendota ; Friant Dam and Res¬
ervoir on the San Joaquin River about
20 miles northeasterly from Fresno; Ma¬
dera Canal from Friant Reservoir north¬
erly for about 36 miles to Ash-Berenda
Slough; and Friant-Kern Canal extend¬
ing southerly from Friant Reservoir
about 160 miles to a point just south of
Kern River.
The Central Valley project will pro¬
vide new and supplemental water for
irrigation through the equalization of
the waters of the Central Valley between
the Sacramento and the San Joaquin
areas. It will provide flood control and
power. It will constitute an improve¬
ment in aid of navigation, and it will
be an important element in the battle
now being waged against the intrusion
■of salt water on the delta lands of the
upper San Francisco Bay region. It will
constitute an important source of fresh
water for municipal and industrial pur¬
poses.
While I have no wish to take the time
of the Senate unnecessarily, still I be¬
lieve that in order that Senators may
have a complete understanding of the
primary features of the presently au¬
thorized Central Valley project, I must
describe each of those features at least
briefly.
Shasta Dam, now nearing completion,
is the second largest masonry dam in the
world, and will contain an approximate
total of 6,400,000 cubic yards of concrete.
The dam is of the massive concrete grav¬
ity type, consisting of a central straight
spillway section and slightly curved
abutment sections. An earth and rock
fill embankment is constructed at the
left end of the main concrete portion of
the dam. The concrete dam and em¬
bankment are about 3,500 feet in over¬
all length on the crest and about 602
feet high. It will be the highest dam of
the overflow type in the world. The res¬
ervoir created by the dam has a total
capacity of 4,500,000 acre-feet. The
power plant under construction imme¬
diately below the dam will have five main
units of 75,000 kilowatts each, and two
station service units each 2,500 kilo¬
watts. Both station service units are
now installed, and two main imits are
nearly completed and probably will be in
operation early in June 1944. Two oth¬
er units constructed for Shasta power
plant were temporarily transferred to
Grand Coulee power plant, since their
use there would result in additional pow¬
er being more quickly secured for war
industries. Restrictions have been placed
on the construction of the remaining
units by the War Production Board.
Keswick Dam will form the afterbay
reservoir for smoothing out Shasta re¬
leases. The dam is nearly completed.
It will be about 1,030 feet long, 140 feet
high, and contain 200,000 cubic yards of
concrete. A power plant under construc¬
tion will ultimately contain three units
with a total capacity of 75,000 kilowatts.
Restrictions have been placed on the
1944
8745
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
manufacture of these units by the War
Production Board.
The 100 -mile-long transmission line
from Shasta power plant to Oroville is
nearing completion. Ultimately there
will be a line d* ivn the west side of the
Sacramento Valley to a substation near
Antioch — or alternate location. A steam
electric plant will also be required ulti¬
mately with a probable installed capac¬
ity of 162,000 kilowatts.
The Delta Cross Channel as now
planned will extend from the Sacramento
River across the easterly edge of the delta
to a location near Stockton. Its total
length will be about 50 miles, with a di¬
version capacity tentatively set at about
10,000 second-feet.
The Contra Costa Canal extends from
Its Rock Slough diversion along the
south side of Suisun Bay to Martinez.
Of the total length of 48 miles there is
now about 40 miles completed. Four
separate pumping lifts raise the water
to an elevation of 124 feet. Construc¬
tion of the remainder of the canal has
been restricted by the War Production
Board. The canal has a diversion capac¬
ity of 350 second-feet and is in partial
operation, delivering municipal, indus¬
trial, and agricultural water.
The Delta-Mendota Canal will divert
from the delta (Tom Paino slough) with
a capacity of 4,600 second-feet. It will
comprise a series of pumping plants and
a high line canal about 100 miles long
leading up the west side of the San Joa¬
quin Valley to Mendota. Croplands
along the lower San Joaquin River now
using water that under future project
operation is to be stored and diverted at
Priant Dam, thereby will be given in
exchange a substitute supply from the
more abundant Sacrafnento River.
Friant Dam, now completed except for
Installation of drum gates and river and
canal outlet gates, is the fourth largest
masonry dam in the world and contains
approximately 2,130,000 cubic yards of
concrete. The dam is of the gravity
type about 3,440 feet long on the crest
and 320 feet high. The reservoir, offi¬
cially named Millerton Lake, has a total
capacity of 520,500 acre-feet. Some of
the river and canal outlet gates are now
being installed to permit partial opera¬
tion of the reservoir for irrigation and
flood control. Work on the remaining
gates has been restricted by the War
Production Board.
Madera Canal will divert water north¬
erly from Millerton Lake to furnish a
supplemental Irrigation supply to the
Madera Irrigation District. The initial
capacity of the canal is 1,000 second-feet
with structures designed for 1,500 sec¬
ond-feet, thereby allowing for future ex¬
pansion if desired. At present about
8^/2 miles of the total length of 36 miles
is completed with the remainder under
construction. Completion of the canal
to its terminus in Ash-Berenda slough
east of Chowchilla is expected early in
1945.
Friant-Kern Canal will divert water
southerly from Millerton Lake for irri¬
gable areas with deficient water sup¬
plies. When completed it will extend
about 160 miles to a point south of Kern
River, near Bakersfield. The tentative
initial capacity of the canal is 3,500 sec¬
ond-feet. Construction of the canal is
at present restricted by the War Produc¬
tion Board.
Before being asked to authorize the
appropriation of vast sums for the con¬
struction of projects, the Senate is en¬
titled to know something of the geog¬
raphy and of the other characteristics
of the area in which these projects are
to be located. I regret to say that the
interim or preliminary report by the
Army engineer^ in House Document No.
649, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, does not afford sufficient infor¬
mation on these matters. I must, there¬
fore, supply the deficiency.
Upper Sacramento Valley as herein
considered includes the drainage basins
of Sacramento River and its tributaries
upstream from the town of Red Bluff.
The drainage basin above Red Bluff has
an area of 9,258 square miles. The west¬
ern half of the basin drains a portion of
the Klamath and Cascade Mountains.
The Cascades rise to their highest point
at Mount Shasta, a peak with a crest ele¬
vation of 14,162 feet. To the east and
south of Mount Shasta is a large plateau
area which extends easterly to the
Warner Mountains near the border of
California.
The drainage basin of the upper Sac¬
ramento River is largely mountainous,
except in the eastern plateau region
where there is a considerable area of de¬
veloped agricultural land. Some scat¬
tered areas of partially developed agri¬
cultural land are located between
Redding and Red Bluff.
The average annual run-off of Sacra¬
mento River at Red Bluff for the 20-year
period 1921-41 was 6,700,000 acre-feet.
This run-off amounts to nearly 40 per¬
cent of the total inflow to the Sacra¬
mento Valley. Future developments in
the area above Red Bluff will consume
only a small portion of this run-off, leav¬
ing large quantities of water available
for regulation and for use in the lower
Sacramento Valley, and for export to
areas of deficient supply in San Joaquin
Valley. Shasta Dam, which is now prac¬
tically complete, will effect substantial
regulation of the run-off of the upper
Sacramento Basin. Table Mountain
Reservoir, near Red Bluff, is proposed
to complete the regulation. An addi¬
tional 800,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet of
water may also be obtained annually by
diversion of the upper Trinity River to
Sacramento River near Redding.
Upper Sacramento Basin has a large
existing and potential power develop¬
ment. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. already
has built four plants on Pit River and its
tributaries, and a fifth is nearing com¬
pletion. Operation of the initial units
of Shasta power plant of the Bureau of
Reclamation has begun. Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. also operates six additional
plants on tributaries of Sacramento
River between Redding and Red Bluff.
The total power-plant capacity which is
now installed or is definitely planned
for the near future on Pit River, at
Shasta and Keswick, and on Sacramento
River tributaries, Is 766,000 kilowatts.
The possible average annual output of
these plants, including supplemental
steam plants to firm the Shasta and Kes¬
wick output, is 4,200,000,000 kilowatt-
hours per year.
Above Shasta Dam the Sacramento
River and its principal tributaries, the
Pit and McCloud Rivers, have a drainage
area of 6,665 square miles. The average
run-off from this area for the 20-year
period 1921-41 was 4,730,000 acre-feet.
A large portion of the drainage area
above Shasta Dam is mountainous, but
in the eastern section of Pit River Basin
there is a plateau area ranging from
3,000 to 6,000 feet in elevation which con¬
tains a considerable area of irrigable
land. It is estimated that 100,000 acres
are now irrigated in- this area, but only
about one-third of the area receives a
full irrigation supply; the remaining
area is irrigated only in the spring and
early summer months when streamflow
is available. Complete data regarding
the use of water are not available, but
such use probably does not exceed 200,-
000 acre feet.
Estimates of the extent of agricultural
land above Shasta Dam vary from 180,-
000 to 350,000 acres. It appears un¬
likely that all of the available land will
ever be supplied with water. Irrigation
already has been extended to those
lands which can be reached easily from
streams and reservoir sites. Most of the
favorable storage sites are now devel¬
oped, including more than 150 reservoirs,
with an aggregate capacity of over 150,-
000 acre-feet. Proposals for additional
developments in Big Valley and other
areas have been made by several State
and Federal agencies. These projects
would be principally to provide supple¬
mental water for lands now irrigated.
Pit River below its confluence with Fall
River has a relatively uniform flow
in comparison with most California
streams, the average minimum monthly
flow being only about one-half the aver¬
age maximum monthly discharge. This
condition coupled with a reasonably
steep river gradient and a sinuous stream
course makes the lower Pit River partic¬
ularly favorable for power development.
As previously stated, four projects on Pit
River and its tributaries have been com¬
pleted by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
These Include two small plants on Hat
Creek, a project diverting from Fall River
to Pit River, and one plant on the main
stream. A fifth development, also on
the main stream, is expected to be com¬
pleted in the spring of 1944. The total
installed capacity of these five plants will
be 277,000 kilowatts and the possible
average annual output 1,500,000,000 kilo¬
watt-hours.
According to Bonner in Water Powers
of California, four projects in addition
to the five developments previously de¬
scribed would utilize most of the remain¬
ing head on Pit River from Fall River
down to the maximum water surface of
Shasta Reservoir. The four undeveloped
projects have a potential installed ca¬
pacity of 200,000 kilowatts and could
produce 1,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours an¬
nually. An additional small project on
Hat Creek could produce 42,000,000 kilo-
watt-homs annually,
A project proposed by Bonner on the
McCloud River would include four rmi-
y
8746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 30
of-river plants with an aggregate head
of 2,025 feet, which could produce 1,170,-
000,000 kilov/att-hours of power annu¬
ally. A project on the upper Sacramento
River above Shasta Reservoir would in¬
clude a 25,000 acre-foot reservoir and a
power drop of 800 feet at which fO, 000,000
kilowatt-hour could be produced.
Consideration has been given to the
possibility of diverting water from Klam¬
ath River Basin into Sacramento Valley.
One of the more favorable plans for such
a project would include a diversion from
Klamath River to Tule Lake, thence to
Pit River. Water diverted from Klam¬
ath River would augment the irrigation
supply for the Central Valley and would
increase the output of the power plants
on Pit River, at Shasta and Keswick
Dams and at other future downstream
projects. The Klamath water might also
be used for irrigation in the Big Valley
area of Pit River, but this possibility has
not been investigated in detail. Further
detail regarding the Klamath diversion
project are presented in the discussion
of Klamath River.
Coming back to the Central Valley
project as authorized by law for con¬
struction by the Bmeau of Reclamation,
we find that Shasta Dam, a key unit in
the portion of the Central Valley proj¬
ect now under construction, is nearing
completion on Sacramento River 12
miles north of Redding. The reservoir
formed by Shasta Dam will have a ca¬
pacity of 4,500,000 acre-feet, which will
regulate the run-off from the upper- Sac¬
ramento River to accomplish the fol¬
lowing primary functions :
fa) Supplying over 1,500,000 acre-feet
of supplemental and new water annually
for lands in Sacramento and San
Joaquin Valleys. This is in addition to
water used at present.
(b) Maintaining a continuous flow of
3,300 cubic feet per second into San
Francisco Bay for protection of lands
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
from salt-water intrusion.
(c) Controlling floods 'on upper Sac¬
ramento River.
(d) Maintaining a minimum river dis¬
charge of 5,000 cubic feet per second
below Red Bluff for navigation purposes.
(e) Producing hydroelectric power, in
conjunction with Keswick power plant
and supplemental steam plants, to the
extent of 430,000,000 kilowatt-hours an¬
nually for project pumping and 1,920,-
000,000 kilowatt-hours of Arm power for
commercial sale. The ultimate installed
power-plant capacity at Shasta Dam will
be 380,000 kilowatts, including 5,000 kilo¬
watts for sta1;ion service units.
In addition to the above, releases will
be made for maintenance of fish life.
Other benefits will include recreation,
pollution abatement, and decreased
pumping costs for irrigators diverting
from Sacramento River.
Keswick Dam, located on Sacramento
River, 3 miles northwest of Redding, is
now under construction by the Bureau
of Reclamation. This dam will provide
storage to reregulate the fluctuating
power releases through Shasta power
plant to a uniform flow below Keswick
Dam. The project will also Include a
75,000-kilowatt power plant and fish
traps necessary for the protection of fish
life. Keswick Dam will raise the water
surface of Sacramento River to the tail-
water elevation of Shasta power plant.
I have pointed out already that testi¬
mony which was presented to the sub¬
committee over which the Senator from
Louisiana presided, indicates that the
Central Valley project and all projects
for the storage of water in the Central
Valley area in California should be con¬
structed by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Some attempt was made, during the
hearings before the subcommittee, to
show that the desire of the Bureau of
Reclamation to build these projects was
based upon bureaucratic ambitions.
Any Senator who has read the testimony
which was heard by the Senator from
Louisiana will appreciate, as I have, that
those attempts ended in failure. Com¬
missioner Bashore and other witnesses
from the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Department of the Interior gave pur-
suasive and impressive testimony to the
effect that these projects should be con¬
structed by the Bureau of Reclamation
because they are essentially irrigation
projects. I suspect that very few Sen¬
ators have had the time to read the testi¬
mony on this point and, because of its
importance in connection with the ques¬
tions now before the Senate and because
of the fact that no reference whatsoever
is made to it in the report issued by the
Senator from Louisiana, I will ask the
Senate to bear with me while I read some
excerpts from that testimony. Beginning
at page 219 of the transcript, we find
Commissioner Bashore testifying as fol¬
lows:
I would like to say for the record at this
point that there is no question about our
re^agnition of the ability of the Corps of
Engineers. We know that they are preemi¬
nent in their field of flood control and navl-
gatior^mprovement. It has been my privi¬
lege TO visit some of the great works con¬
structed by the Corps of Engineers and per¬
sonally I am proud of that work.
Does that statement sound like the
expression of a petty bureaucrat? On
the contrary, standing by itself, it is
evidence enough of the proposition that
if, in Commissioner Bashore’s judgment,
the construction of these works in the
Central Valley area of California and
the purposes that these works are to
serve constituted them primarily a flood-
control undertaking, he would have said
so. There follows in the testimony, pre¬
sented by Commissioner Bashore and
other officials and engineers, persuasive
evidence of the proposition that these
projects are essentially Irrigation proj¬
ects and that they should, therefore, be
constructed by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion. If Senators will read that testi¬
mony, I am satisfied that they will con¬
clude, as I have, that it would be a tragic
mistake on the part of the Congress to
authorize any agency other than the tra¬
ditional agency entrusted with the con¬
struction, operation, and maintenance of
irrigation works to build these projects.
I refer to the testimony beginning on
page 224 and ending at the bottom of
page 244.
Can anyone doubt now that these proj¬
ects are predominantly projects for the
storage and beneficial consumptive use of
water? If any doubts remained at the
conclusion of the testimony presented by
Mr. Kerr ad Mr. Bryan, those doubts
surely must have been removed from the
mind of any fair-minded man by the fol¬
lowing statement which was presented by
Assistant Regional Director Calland.
I shall not take the time to read the
statement by Mr. Calland, but it will be
found in the transcript commencing at
page 250 and ending at page 258.
Mr. President, entirely aside from the
question whether these projects are
primarily irrigation projects, I wish to
point out to the Senate that since all
have irrigation features, they should, in
any event, be constructed, operated, and
maintained by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion in order to assure that the principal
purposes of the Congress in appropriat¬
ing for their construction will be carried
out. I am impressed by the fact that the
Federal reclamation laws, with their va¬
rious provisions for the development of
family-size-farm and the prevention of
speculation in lands, should be made ap¬
plicable to all reservoir projects in the
west. If the policy of the family-size
farm, a policy which, by the way, is writ¬
ten into the platform of both major
parties, is to be accomplished, then these
projects must be built, operated, and
maintained by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion under the reclamation laws. If this
is not done, then the millions of dollars
poured out of the Federal Treasury into
these California projects may well have
been misspent. If we are not watchful,
we can have in California an experience
similar to the experience of fascist Italy
in connection with the reclamation of
lands. Senators will recall that some
years ago Mussolini undertook an ambi¬
tious program to reclaim lands. It was
widely advertised as a program that
would “give land and bread to millions
of Italians in the future.” In practice,
however, it resulted in enriching the
owners of large estates and in providing
little land for the masses of the working
people. Surely the Senate will wish to
avoid a similar result in California. The
way to do that is to authorize the con¬
struction of these projects by the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation under the Federal
reclamation laws, with provision for sub¬
division of large landed estates and the
settlement on lands of returning war
veterans and demobilized war workers.
While this problem is of particular
concern to California, since these proj¬
ects will be located there, I wish to em¬
phasize the fact that it is nonetheless
a national problem. It is a problem in
which the Congress of the United States
must be concerned, not merely because
millions of dollars of Federal funds will
be required for the construction of these
projects, but also because if these proj¬
ects are wisely administered and if they
are made to result in the creation of
family-size farms, then they will play an
important part in helping California
to return to a prosperous peacetime
economy.
Mr. President, I have offered also
amendments to delete from this bill the
special authorization for the Folsom
reservoir on the American River, the
project for the Isabella Reservoir on the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Kern River, the plan for the Terminus
and Success Reservoirs, Keweah, and
Tule Rivers, the project for the Kings
River and Tulare Lake Basin and the
plan of improvement for flood control
and other purposes on the Calaveras
River and Littlejohn Creek. All of these
projects are logical extensions of the
Central Valley project and, therefore,
they should be planned, designed, con¬
structed, operated, and maintained as
integral parts of the Central Valley
project by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion in accordance with the estab¬
lished policies of the Federal Recla¬
mation law. What I have said in con¬
nection with my amendment for the
deletion for the project described in
House Document 649, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, is, in general,
applicable to these projects also. I do
not wish to take the time of the Senate
to reiterate those reasons as to each one
of these projects. But I do wonder why
the subcommittee of the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. Overton] thought it ad¬
visable to authorize the project for the
Folsom Reservoir twice. The Folsom
Reservoir is one of the reservoirs pro¬
posed in House Document 649 and in¬
cluded in the proposed authorization be¬
ginning on line 12 of page 31 and ending .
on line 4 of page 32 of the bill as reported
by the Senate Committee on Commerce.
Yet, for some reason, it seems to have
been found advisable to single it out and
to authorize it specially again by the
item beginning on line 5 and ending on
line 11, page 32. Perhaps the reason was
that the language in House Document
649 was not sufficiently broad to satisfy
the Chief of Engineers and that the Sen¬
ate Committee on Commerce decided that
a blank check would be preferable. I
suggest this possibility because the lan¬
guage of committee amendment No. 26,
which provides special authorization for
the Folsom Reservoir, also provides that
It may be built “with such modifications
thereof as in the discretion of the Secre¬
tary of War and the Chief Engineer may
be advisable.” This language, I suggest,
is so broad as to permit the Chief of Engi¬
neers to build anything he wishes under
the guise of a reservoir on the American
River. Does the Senate really intend to
write such a blank check? Is there not
a point where the Congress will hesitate
to delegate authority of this sort? Such
delegation as this is the very negation
olf the democratic process.
I have referred to the fact that the
President does not approve of the plans
of the Chief of Engineers for these pro¬
jects in the Central Valley area of Cali¬
fornia. The evidence of that is in the
following letters, which I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record at
this point as a part of my remarks. The
letters have been heretofore referred to,
I believe, during the course of the debate,
One of the letters, dated February 7,
1944, was written by the President to Mr.
Whittington, chairman of the Flood
Control Committee of the House. The
other letter is dated August 7, 1944, and
was written by the President to the
chairman of the subcommittee of the
Commerce Committee of the Senate. I
ask that the two letters be printed at
this point in the Record as a part of my
remarks.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
The White House,
Washington, February 7, 1944.
Hon. William M. Whittington,
Chairman, Flood Control Committee,
House of Representatives.
My Dear Me. Whittington: Over 2 years
ago, on May 6, 1941, 1 wrote to you about the
Kings River project and the Kern River pro¬
ject in California. Your committee was then
considering the authorization of both of these
projects for development by the Corps of
Engineers under the Jurisdiction of the Sec¬
retary of War.
The schedule of hearings on the flood con¬
trol bill of 1944 indicates that proposals for
authorizing these projects as undertakings
of the Corps of Engineers will be considered
again on February 9, 1944. I shall appreciate
It if you will read this letter into the record
at that time.
In my letter of May 5, 1941, I said, in part:
“Good administration continues to demand
that projects which are dominantly for
irrigation should be constructed by the
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior, and not by the Corps of Engineers,
War Department. The Kings River project is
authorized for construction by the Bureau of
Reclamation at this time. The proposed
project on the Kern River is dominantly an
Irrigation project. Neither of these projects,
therefore, should be authorized for construc¬
tion by the Corps of Engineers. To do so
would only lead to needless confusion.”
That letter is applicable today.
These projects should be constructed by
the Bureau of Reclamation and that portion
of their cost to be charged to irrigation
should be flnanced on the basis of the pre¬
vailing Federal policy of 40 annual payments
by Irrigation beneficiaries. These projects
should be maintained and operated by the
Bureau of Reclamation, but operation for
flood control should be In accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
War.
In my letter of May 5, 1941, 1 suggested that
a sound policy in connection with these
water, projects would consist of selecting the
construction agency by determining the
dominant Interest. Projects In which navi¬
gation or flood control clearly dominate are
those in which the interest of the Corps of
Engineers is superior and should be so
recognized. On the other hand, projects in
which irrigation and related conservation
dominate are those in which the Interest of
the Bureau of Reclamation in the Depart¬
ment of the Interior is paramount and should
be so recognized. No matter which agency
builds a multiple-purpose structure involv¬
ing in even a minor way the Interests of the
other, the agency with the responsibility for
that particular interest should administer
it in accordance with its authorizing legisla¬
tion and general policies. For example, the
Bureau of Reclamation in the Department
of the Interior should administer, under the
reclamation laws and its general policies,
those irrigation benefits and phases of pro¬
jects built by the Corps of Engineers. These
suggestions are, to my mind, even more perti¬
nent today. For today we gird for peace.
Confusion over Jurisdiction ought not to be
allowed to disrupt the great preparations
now being made for post-war construction of
vital public works.
Sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
8747
The White House,
Washington, August 7, 1944.
Hon. John H. Overton,
United States Senate.
My Dear John: I am glad to learn from
your letter of June 23 that the Senate Com¬
merce Committee adopted a progressive pro¬
vision for the marketing of power from navi¬
gation and flood-control projects in the bills
that have been reported to the Senate.
The dam and reservoir projects in the
Central Valley of California, which would be
authorized by H. R. 4485 for construction by
the Army engineers, should, for pui'poses of
sound administration and coordinated oper¬
ation, be constructed by the Bureau of Rec¬
lamation in the Department of the Interior.
These projects constitute logical extensions
of the existing Central Valley project of the
Bureau of Reclamation. California, in com¬
mon with the other Western States, has a
flood-control problem and a need for water.
The basic and best solution of her flood-
control problem lies in the minimum stor¬
age and use of water for irrigation. Every
flood-control project and every navigation
project in the West should therefore be
made, so far as practicable, to play its part
in the great scheme of conservation of water
for beneficial consumptive use.
It may well be that testimony before your
committee in favor of the construction of
these projects by the Corps of Engineers
was a reflection of the desire of certain large
land interests in California to obtain irri¬
gation and other benefits without being sub¬
jected to the repayment requirements and
to the other public safeguards that are a
part of the reclamation law, but I do not
believe that this should be allowed to ob¬
scure the fundamental objectives of that
law. In this connection, I was pleased by
the inclusion of the irrigation amendment.
But this amendment will not assure that
the planning, design, construction, and op¬
eration of these reservoirs shall be such as
to fulfill the primary need for conservation
and beneficial consumptive use of water.
I hope, therefore, that the Congress will see
fit to place In the Bureau of Reclamation the
authority an<J the responsibility for accom¬
plishment of the great objectives that the
Federal Government should achieve in Cal¬
ifornia.
I am convinced of the soimdness of the
amendment designed to assure that the re¬
spective States have opportunity to have
their views formally recorded in reports on
proposed projects of Interest to them. While
I appreciate your concern over the provision
of that amendment that would allow the
States to hold up construction of projects
already approved by the Congress, this ap¬
pears to be the case only with respect to
projects in the present bill and is necessary
to permit transition to the procedure that
would be effective for future projects. This
amendment seems to me to be no le.ss con¬
stitutional than other limitations written by
the Congress from time to time on the extent
and manner of the execution of powers vested
in the Federal Government by the commerce
clause of the Constitution.
With respect to the Missouri River, specifi¬
cally, I am hopeful that a method can be
found for the settlement of differences be¬
tween the proponents of irrigation and of
navigation so that the needed over-all devel¬
opment of the basin can proceed expediti¬
ously.
I appreciate your having given my views
consideration and having made them avail¬
able to your committee. You have under¬
taken an Important Job and one that is
particularly close to my heart. I am grateful
and I am sure the Nation as a whole will be
No. 166 - 5
8748 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE NovEMiP’u. 30
grateful for the great effoz't you are putting
Into this task.
Sincerely yourg,
Franklin D, Roosevelt.
Mr. MURRAY. I also mvite attention
to a letter which was received by the
Vice President from the Secretary of the
Interior, dated November 21, 1944. I
ask unanimous consent to have that let¬
ter printed in the Record at this point
as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
United States
Department op the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, D. C., November 21, 1944.
The Vice President of the United States.
My Dear Mr. Vice President: In the inter¬
est of sound reciamation development in the
western United States, I cali to your atten¬
tion recent proposals regarding the rivers and
harbors bill and the flood-control bill, which
will be urged upon the Senate when it gives
active consideration to those measures.
These proposals, if adopted, would breach the
long-established policies of the Congress un¬
der which reclamation development in the
West has pi'oceeded since 1902 in a manner
that has gained for it bipartisan and Nation¬
wide support. It would be tragic if the basic
reclamation policies of the Nation were
breached by the pressure of short-sighted
and selfish local interests.
Early in September in Chicago, there was
a conference of representatives of the'“ West¬
ern States and of some Eastern States. I
am not informed as to the proceedings of
that conference, but the results have been
made public. The resolutions and proposed
amendments to the rivers and harbors and
flood-control bills whfch were adopted by the
conference were printed in the Congressional
Record on September 19, appearing on page
7988. In this letter I want to emphasize the
major policies of the Congress that those pro¬
posed amendments endanger.
Federal reclamation of arid and semiarid
lands has proceeded, since the Reclamation
Act of 1902, on the reciprocal basis of Federal
provision of interest-free money and repay¬
ment by the local water users, without inter¬
est, of that part of the reclamation construc¬
tion costs found to be within the repayment
ability of the water users. As experience de¬
veloped and economic circumstances changed
or varied, the Congress, from time to time,
very properly made changes in the repay¬
ment period and in the amount to be paid
annually. However, throughout these legis¬
lative variations in the term of years and the
basis of the annual charges, the Congress has
adhered rigidly to the principle that the
water users should repay without interest
that part of the construction costs foun,d to
be within their repayment ability. That
principle has been the essence of every re¬
payment law. Repayment in accordance with
that principle has been required by the Con¬
gress, ever since 1902, as one of the conditions
upon .which Federal funds would be pro¬
vided for reclamation development.
The appropriateness of that condition has
been underscored in the last decade when
the Congress has undertaken the financing of
reclamation developments, not only from the
receipts from disposals of public lands but
also from funds in the General Treasury, tax¬
payers’ money.
Within the past few years there has been
an increasing attempt on the part of a few
local Interests to have reclamation develop¬
ments provided in connection with flood-
control projects to be constructed by the
Army engineers, without requiring adherence
to the repayment principle or to the other
policies of the Federal reclamation laws. One
of the amendments proposed by the Chicago
conference would authorize the Secretary of
War, In connection with any flood-control
project the Army engineers build out West,
to contract for water storage for irrigation
and any other other beneficial uses on what¬
ever terms the Secretary of War may deem
reasonable.
The Congress, again ever since 1902, has
prescribed, as another condition of Federal
reclamation with interest-free money, that
the lands receiving the benefits of the Fed¬
eral reclamation developments, whether
public lands or privately owned lands, shall
be family-sized farms. Through Democratic
and Republican administrations this condi¬
tion has been reiterated by the Congress.
Coupled with these so-called excess-land
laws have been legislative provisions to pre¬
vent speculation in land prices.
In the past 15 years there have been three
exceptions from the excess-land laws. Two
of them have been legislative and one ad¬
ministrative. On June 16, 1938, the Con¬
gress provided "That the excess-land provi¬
sions of the Federal reclamation laws shall
not be applicable to lands which now have
an irrigation water supply from sources
other than a Federal reclamation project and
which will receive a supplemental supply
from the Colorado-Big Thompson project.’’
Legislative history will show that this De¬
partment reported favorably on that 1938
legislation, which did not provide a blanket
exemption. On November 29, 1940, the Con¬
gress exempted from the excess-land laws
the lands served by the Truckee River storage
project, Nevada, and the lands served by the
Humboldt River Reservoir in the same State.
Legislative history will show that, although
this Department did not report favorably
on that blanket exemption, it Interposed no
objection. However, I am now certain that
there was no Justification for the unquali¬
fied exemption regarding the Nevada projects
and that the act providing a partial exemp¬
tion for the Colorado-Big Thompson project
should have been so framed as to give greater
assurance that the reclamation land policy
of the Congress would be in effect on that
project.
In 1933, in connection with a repayment
contract between the United States and the
Imperial irrigation district involving the All-
American Canal, my predecessor ruled that
at least some of the lands which would be
serviced by the new canal were' not subject
to the excess-land laws. The extent of that
ruling, its basis, and its governing effect are
not clear.
Besides those three exceptions, the record
shows that the administration and enforce¬
ment of the excess-land laws has shortcom¬
ings. Many practical difficulties were caused
by shifts in and consolidations of owner¬
ships during the depression years. However,
the shortcomings to an extent have out¬
lasted the situations that gave rise to them.
In the Columbia Basin Project Act of 1943,
consideration was given by the Congress to
the length of time over which the anti-
speculation provisions of the excess-land laws
need to be applied in order to accomplish
their purpose. ’This Department recom¬
mended for that particular project a 10-year
period for each block of irrigation lands in¬
volved. The Congress adopted, and the law
provides, a 5-year period. Some limited
period for application of the antispeculation
provisions, long enough to protect settlers
against being victimized by land speculators
yet shorter than the full repayment period,
might be desirable for all reclamation
projects.
I mention these developments of the last
15 years because in the light of experience
gained and changed conditions they show
that there is need to recast the excess-land
provisions of the Federal reclamation laws.
However, I want it clearly understood that
I believe that any new legislation on excess-
land matters and antispeculation should ad¬
here as closely as practicable to the long-
established policies of family-sized farms and
of protection of settlers against speculative
land prices. Failure of any new legislation,
whether for a particular project or general
in scope, to maintain those basic policies to
the fullest extent practicable would seriously
weaken the Justification for Federal develop¬
ment of reclamation projects on an interest-
free financial basis. It must be admitted,
however, that the problems are complex and
that even the local interests Involved are con¬
flicting. Ample proof of this fact is con¬
tained in the hearings conducted in Cali¬
fornia last summer by the subcommittee of
the Senate Committee on Irrigaition, headed
by Senator Downey.
The Central Valley project, like other re¬
cent and proposed Federal reclamation proj¬
ects, will provide sujiplemental water supplies
for lands which are already irrigated but
which have inadequate water supplies. Like
other recent and proposed projects, the Cen¬
tral Valley project will provide irrigation
water supplies for large areas of lands not
now irrigated. There also is a complication
on that project arising from the fact that a
substantial amount of Irrigation water is
pumped from underground sources Instead of
being delivered through surface distribution
systems. Even so, in those hearings held last
July from Sacramento to Bakersfield a hue
and cry was raised against the blanket ex¬
emption from the excess-land laws urged by
the proponents of the so-called Elliott
amendment to the rivers and harbors bill.
The protest came from members of the
Grange; it came from representatives of
urban labor organizations making common
cause with the small farmers and farm work¬
ers; it came from representatives of church
groups who pointed out that rural areas of
family-size farms are stable enough to per¬
mit religious development, whereas large-
scale, industrialized farming, with its gen¬
erally itinerant farm labor, allows little op¬
portunity for stable community life, religious
and otherwise. Family-size farms for indi¬
vidual citizens, prosperous small towns sup¬
ported by such an agriculture, and the good
American community life they permit — those
are the very things Congress sought since
1902 to promote and protect by the Federal
reclamaticp laws.
Full credit should go to the members of
the committee and to Congressman Elliott,
who, at the last hearing in Bakersfield,
frankly recognized the complexity of the
problem and stated their willingness to con¬
sider any compromise legislation that in a
workable manner would deal fairly and rea¬
sonably with the developed farm lands which
need and should receive supplemental water
and that would provide at the same time, to
the fullest extent practicable, for develop¬
ment of family-sized farms in the Central
Valley area.
Following those hearings, local representa¬
tives of the Bureau of Reclamation in the
Central Valley of California have been work¬
ing with the various local interests with the
objective of working out such compromise
legislation, and progress is being made by
open-minded discussion and cooperation in
the area affected. Early in the next Con¬
gress, and perhaps during the present session
of this Congress, there will be presented to
the Congress for its consideration proposed
legislation that will reflect those cooperative
efforts. Yet the Cfhicago conference proposes
that the Elliott amendment, which would
make a blanket exemption of the Central
Valley project from the excess-land laws, be
reinserted in the rivers and harbors bill. It
would be tragic not bnly as regards the fu¬
ture of the Central Valley project but also as
regards the reclamation program in the West
if the Elliott amendment became law.
The Chicago conference also proposes an
amendment to the flood control bill which
would have the effect of precluding any rec¬
lamation development by the Bureau of Rec¬
lamation under the Federal reclamation laws
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
In connection with an Army flood-control
dam If any of the lands to be served already
have a partial water supply from a locally
operated system. The flood control bill would
authorize a number of multiple-purpose
projects in California which would provide
Irrigation water supplies and which this pro¬
posed amendment, in effect, would exempt
from the reclamation laws.
The President and I have urged that the
proposed multiple-purpose developments in
California should be constructed by the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation so that the reclamation
developments in that State which will be
served by these Federal structures will be
carried forward under the Federal reclama¬
tion laws. Consistency with the policies
Congress has iterated, and reiterated from
1902 to date, requires it.
I would appreciate your placing this letter
before the Senate so that it may be informed
of the dangers inherent in these proposals
of the Chicago conference.
Sincerely yours,
Harold L. Ickes,
Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I sub¬
mit that this discussion of the problem
proves conclusively that these projects
concern reclamation, and that the
amendment which I have offered should
be adopted.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have inserted in
the Record at this point as a part of
my remarks two telegrams, one from the
Mississippi Valley Association and the
other from the Ohio Valley Conserva¬
tion and Flood Control Congress, urg¬
ing the elimination of all controversial
questions and the prompt passage of the
pending bill.
There being no objection, the tele¬
grams were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
St. Louis, Mo., November 27, 1944.
Hon. John H. Overton,
United States Senate Chamber:
Mississippi Valley Association, representing
23 States-with more than 60 percent of popu¬
lation of the United States, assembled in
annual convention at St. Louis passed unan¬
imously the following resolution and endorse¬
ment:
We urge Immediate passage of the flood-
control bill, H. R. 4485, and recommend ac¬
ceptance of the coordinated plan of Missouri
Basin development agreed upon by the Army
engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. Im¬
mediate passage of this bill necessary to
preparations for timely post-war readjust¬
ment and In order that flood damages and
erosion damage of continually increasing
amounts may be stopped.
Lachlen MacLeat.
St. Louis, Mo., November 28, 1944.
Hon. John H. Overton,
Committee on Commerce:
The Ohio Valley Conservation and Flood
Control Congress urge you to eliminate all
controversial questions and projects and
then pass flood-control bill.
Dr. Charles E. Holzer, President,
Alan N. Jordan, Secretary.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
wish to make a few brief observations
with reference to the matters on which
the very able junior Senator from Mon¬
tana [Mr. Murray] has made comments
today. I shall take them up in the order
in which he presented them. I shall not
undertake to cover the whole subject
matter of his remarks.
The junior Senator from Montana did
appear before the House Committee on
Flood Control, and he filed with that
committee, without reading, a written
statement. In that written statement
he did propose the amendments to which
he has referred. Substantially, how¬
ever, those amendments have been in¬
corporated in the present bill. They are
hot word for word as suggested by the
Senator from Montana, but they are sub¬
stantially the same. They relate to
irrigation and electric power. It is my
understanding that both those amend¬
ments meet with the approval of the
Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation.
The Senator has referred to a letter
written by the President on February 7,
1944, to the chairman of the House Com¬
mittee on Flood Control. So far as I
am concerned, I endorse the statement
made by the President of the United
States. He undertakes to show a line of
demarcation between reservoirs for rec¬
lamation and irrigation purposes and
those built for flood control and
navigation. One category is to be built
by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the
other by the Army engineers. I quote
from the letter of the President, found
on page 935 of the House committee
hearings, in the statement of the Senator
from Montana. The President said:
In my letter of May 5, 1941, I suggested
that a sound policy in connection with these
water projects would consist of selecting the
construction agency by determining the
dominant interest. Projects in which navi¬
gation or flood control clearly dominate are
those in which the interest of the Corps of
Engineers is superior, and should be so rec¬
ognized. On the other hand, projects in
which irrigation and related conservation
dominate are those in which the interest of
the Bureau of Reclamation in the Depart¬
ment of the Interior is paramount, and
should be so recognized.
The projects in this bill are along the
lines suggested by the President. Ac¬
cording to the testimony, as appraised
by the Committee on Commerce, there
are no projects in this bill proposed to
be constructed by the Army engineers in
which the interests of flood control do
not predominate, and in the rivers and
harbors bill there are no projects in
which the interests both of flood control
and navigation are not the predominat¬
ing and controlling factor. In the joint
report submitted as a result of a con¬
ference and agreement between the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation and the Army engi¬
neers that policy has been carried out,
and the reservoirs in which the predomi¬
nant interest is conservation, irrigation,
and reclamation are to be under the con¬
trol of the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Department of the Interior. Those
in which navigation and flood control
predominate are to be under the control
and operation of the Army engineers. I
think what the President has said is fair,
and that policy is the one which is being
pursued.
The able junior Senator from Montana
has made considerable comment in refer¬
ence to the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers and the Central Valley, in Cali¬
fornia, The principle to which I have
8749
just referred was carried out in respect
to the projects contained in the bill
which were authorized for those streams.
The testimony shows, I think rather con¬
clusively, that the projects herein au¬
thorized to be constructed by the Army
engineers are ones in which flood con¬
trol predominates over irrigation. Of
course, the Senate will understand that,
insofar as irrigation is concerned, all
surplus water which can be used for irri¬
gation is turned over to the Department
of the Interior, and the method of irri¬
gation and the operation of the irriga¬
tion works are under the control of the
Department of the Interior.
Ther^ was another and I think a very
cogent reason which addressed itself to
the members of the Committee on Com¬
merce as to why these projects should
be authorized to be constructed by the
Chief of Engineers. It is that of the 78
irrigation associations in the Central
Valley; all except 2, which I do not think
appeared or made any statement at all,
desired that those projects be con¬
structed by the Army enginers.
Mr. President, .stated briefly, that is
the reason which actuated the Com-
.rjnerce Committee. The original author¬
ization was made in the House, and one
or two, or three or four projects were
added by the Commerce Committee.
Mr. President, I think I could not
present to the Senate a better argument
in favor of this policy and a finer tribute
to the Corps of Engineers than that made
by the very distinguished junior Senator
from Montana. He later appeared be¬
fore the House Committee on Flood Con¬
trol, and I wish to quote from his state¬
ment before that committee. His state¬
ment was not merely a prepared one filed
with the committee, but it was an oral
statement made in response to questions
propounded to him, and it contained his
own pff-the-reel observations, as it were,
I read from his statement :
Senator Murray. I will speak just very
briefly. I was here on the occasion of filing
my statement and listened very attentively
to the statements being made by Colonel
Reber of the Army engineers, and I was so
Impressed with the fact that the Corps of
Army Engineers understood this problem so
perfectly that I did not have any apprehen¬
sion but what the rights of the upper States
would be very well safeguarded.
At that time the Senator was speaking
in respect to the Missouri Valley.
I now omit a part of the Senator’s
statement; I shall not quote all of it,
because it is too long. At a later point
in his statement he said:
I want to say that I feel that I can endorse
the Army engineers’ program here, because I
am confident that with their knowledge of all
the Interests and conditions involved, they
are not going to overlook the need of pro¬
tecting the rights of the upper States, the
neglect of which would be a great injury to
the Nation as a whole.
I now quote from another part of the
Senator’s statement:
I merely want to say that I approved the
Army engineers’ effort because I am confl-
ident that they are going to work out a pro¬
gram that will be beneficial to all the States
Involved and to the country as a whole.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 30
8750
Later In his statement the Senator
said:
I can see no basis whatever for any feeling
that the rights of our State would be jeopard¬
ized in any manner by the Pick report or
by the Army engineers, in any respect, if
their enunciated policies are carried out.
Later in his statement the Senator
said;
I have the greatest confidence in the
Army engineers. I think we are very for¬
tunate to have this agency, which has made
such a thorough study of these problems, to
work out this project, and I am satisfied that
as a result of their efforts we are going to
solve this problem for the mutual benefit
and advantage of all the States involved.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator permit me to interject at this
point?
Mr. OVERTON. Certainly.
Mr. MURRAY. I wish to say that I
expressed my judgment at that time.
But I was exceedingly disappointed to
find that they utterly disregarded the
interests of the upper States, and flatly
refused to do anything about it at the
time. I was impressed by the way they
talked and by the assurance they gave
us offhand when we would talk with
them. But since then I have discovered
that they had no intention whatever of
recognizing and respecting the irriga¬
tion rights of the upper States.
It was not until the Missouri Valley
Authority bill began to be agitated that
they changed their minds with reference
to that.
I wish to say that the Army engineers
are very able and very persuasive men.
I noticed an article which appeared in
the Survey Graphic a short time ago,
which describes the ability of the Army
engineers to develop good will amongst
the people. The article says, in part:
Colonel Pick has a fiair for stirring up good
will by personal contact and extending it by
sound techniques. Into his division office he
has introduced the first public-relations
man — and to date the only one — ever to oper¬
ate in the sacred and somewhat tongue-tied
purlieus of the Army engineers. This was
William E. Langdon, an able ex-journalist
from New England.
The article then describes how he de¬
veloped his plan, which is not a com¬
pletely worked-out plan but is a mere
conglomeration of projects which will
have to be mere thoroughly engineered
after they are approved.
But I wish to say that he did impress
me at the time, and I have the utmost
confidence that there was no intention
on the part of the Army engineers to
ignore the rights of the Northern States.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
able junior Senator from Montana did
specifically endorse the Pick report — and
it is what is authorized in the pending
bill — because he said;
I can see no basis whatever for any feeling
that the rights of our State would be jeop¬
ardized in any manner by the Pick report or
by the Army engineers, in any respect —
And so forth.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hall
in the chair). Does the Senator from
m
Louisiana yield to the Senator from Mon¬
tana?
Mr. OVERTON, I am glad to yield.
Mr. MURRAY. That statement was
made in connection with my amendment
which was proposed at that time, and
which I was led to believe would be ac¬
cepted by the engineers. They prom¬
ised us on numerous occasions that their
plan would not in any manner rob the
Northern States of their water rights;
and assuming that they were telling the
truth about that, I was confident that
they would accept the amendments
which merely carried into effect their
protestations that there was no intention
to deprive the irrigation States of their
water rights. Therefore, I was willing at
that time to go ahead with the program
provided recognition were given to the
irrigation rights of the Northern States.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr, President, the
Assistant Chief of Engineers, as well as
all the engineers who appeared before
our committee, stated that they had ab¬
solutely no objection whatsoever to the
irrigation and power amendments which
were suggested by the Secretary of the
Interior. They were similar to those
suggested by the Senator from Montana,
and were subsequently incorporated in
the pending bill. The engineers stated
that they were perfectly willing to turn
over to the Department of the Interior
control of the power generated for dis¬
tribution, and were perfectly willing to
turn over to the Bureau of Reclamation
the distribution of all surplus water held
back by the dams constructed by them,
the distribution of which would come
under the reclamation law, or would fol¬
low whatever method Congress might
determine upon.
The amendment suggested by the Sen¬
ator from Montana is in opposition to
the agreements entered into as set forth
in the joint report between the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Army engineers
which has already been authorized by
this body. That report covers the entire
Missouri River Basin, including the res¬
ervoirs and dams which would be con¬
structed by the Army engineers, as set
forth in the report, and the remaining
reservoirs which would be consti’ucted
by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. President, I ask that the amend¬
ment be not agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from Mon¬
tana [Mr. Murray].
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Is still before the Senate and open to
further amendment.
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr.
President, I have an amendment lying
on the desk, v/hich I call up and ask to
have immediately considered.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I may
say to the Senator from Oklahoma that
I had the amendment incorporated in
the bill during the Senator’s absence.
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr.
President, I understand that the amend¬
ment has already been incorporated in
the bill. That is satisfactory to me.
Mr. OVERTON. The amendment was
agreed to yesterday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am
contemplating offering another amend¬
ment, but I do not have it perfected at
this time. Inasmuch as it is near the
time when we usually recess, I should
like to have the matter go over until
tomorrow. I assure the Senate that I
do not intend to take up the time of the
Senate unnecessarily, and that I can
present the amendment with due dis¬
patch when the Senate convenes to¬
morrow.
Mr. HILL. Does the Senator have
in mind the amendment which he has
been contemplating in connection with
the creation of a Missouri Valley Author¬
ity?
Mr. MURRAY. That is the amend¬
ment which I have in mind.
Mr. HILL. I may say to the Senator
that I favor a Missouri Valley Authority.
Of course, as the Senator knows, any
legislation which would create a Mis¬
souri Valley Authority would necessarily
cover many different subjects. The
legislation would be very broad in its
scope, and very far reaching. As the
Senator further knows, no opportunity
has been afforded to hold any hearings
on proposals of that character, no oppor¬
tunity has been afforded to consider such
a proposal in executive session, or for
a committee to carefully consider it.
That applies particularly to proposals
of this character, which are broad in
scope and far reaching in their effects. I
wonder if the Senator insists on offering
his amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ap¬
preciate the observations of the distin¬
guished Senator from Alabama.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. On several occa¬
sions I have stated on the floor of the
Senate that I strongly favor the project
referred to by the distinguished Senator
from Montana. However, I for one
would not vote for the proposal unless
hearings were held and perhaps some
changes were made in the proposal.
I have had occasion to discuss the
matter with my distinguished colleague
[Mr. Overton], the chairman of the sub¬
committee, and I have been assured
that he is willing that hearings be held
on the proposal. He has assured me
that if, after the Seventy-ninth Con¬
gress has convened, the measure pro¬
posed by the distinguished Senator from
Montana shall be introduced, he will see
to it that hearings are held on it at an
early date. With that understanding, I
wonder if the Senator from Montana
would not be good enough to refrain from
pressing his amendment at this time.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ap¬
preciate the sentiments expressed by the
several Senators.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. WHITE. I hope the Senator from
Montana will not press his amendment
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
at this time. I understand that no hear¬
ings have been held on it. But, quite
apart from that, it is a matter of a
highly controversial nature. It would re¬
quire the development of a quorum, it
might lead the Senate into long debate,
and I feel it would be unfortunate if the
matter were pressed at this time, regard¬
less of whatever disposition might be
made of it.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have
felt compelled to offer the amendment
because I have believed right along that
If we permit the bill in its present form
to be passed, we might be foreclosed from
having my proposal brought up for con¬
sideration before the convening of the
next Congress. The bill as presented
in the Senate in the first instance con¬
tained provisions which, of course, have
since been eliminated. However, I have
felt right along, in view of the fact that
the program for the development of the
entire Missouri River Basin is a compre¬
hensive one, that it provides a list of
projects which would cover the entire
river from one end to the other, and
that it is proposed that the' development
be carried out under the Bureau of Rec¬
lamation and the Army engineers under
a joint agreement which was recently
entered into by the two Federal agen¬
cies, that that situation might be recog¬
nized and considered as a complete solu¬
tion of the problem. It is also my fear
that the Senate might hereafter feel
that there was no need of a new over-all
agency which would carry on a unified
development of the river.
Of course, the President’s letter which
was recently read to the Senate indicated
that he recognized the agreement which
was entered into as merely a step in the
right direction, but that it did not cover
the entire field. It would be impossible
to bring about a complete development
of the Missouri River Basin to the best
interests and welfare of all the people
without there being provided one single
agency which would have complete ju¬
risdiction. It should not be necessary to
go back and forth betiyeen agencies and
up and down the river to the various
States in order to obtain consent to un¬
dertake various activities.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Montana yield to the
Senator from Vermont?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I was interested in the
remarks of the distinguished junior
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. EllenderI,
to the effect that he had discussed the
matter with the chairman of the sub¬
committee which would hold heai’ings
on the bill which the Senator from Mon¬
tana has introduced. May I ask to what
committee he refers?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I un¬
derstood that this matter was to be re¬
ferred to the Committee on Commerce,
and that the senior Senator from Loui¬
siana is chairman of the subcommittee
which usually holds hearings on the
subject.
Mr. AIKEN. Has that arrangement
been effected?
Mr. MURRAY. No; it has not been
effected, and I did not consent that the
bill should be sent to that committee. I
promised the chairman of the Commit¬
tee on Cornmerce that I would discuss
the matter with him after the bill had
been reintroduced on the opening of the
new Congress, and determine then
whether the bill should go to the Com¬
mittee on Commerce. The bill as intro¬
duced during this session went to the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
and also to the Committee on Irrigation
and Reclamation.
Mr. ELLENDER. I happen to be on
the Committee on Agriculture and For¬
estry, and if the bill should go to that
committee, I assure the Senator that T
shall do all in my power to have hearings
held as soon as possible.
Mr. AIKEN. I hope the junior Sen¬
ator from Louisiana will help keep bills
of this nature in the Committee on Agri¬
culture and Forestry, because in the
great Central West and Northwest, the
States of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah, and all the others, there are
tens of thousands of producers, and if
the Agricultural Committee should give
up jurisdiction over a bill of this nature,
it would be an admission that producers
existed for the benefit of transportation
companies.
Mr. ELLENDER. I was under the
impression that the distinguished Sen¬
ator from Montana expected to send his
bill to the Committee on Commerce, and
that is why I discussed the matter with
my colleague. But if he should insist
on sending the bill where I believe it
belongs, I shall then do what I can to
have hearings at the earliest possible
date.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will .the
Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I understand the declara¬
tion of policy which was in the bill, which
the author of the Missouri Valley Au¬
thority bill thought might be prejudi¬
cial to the M. V. A. bill, has now been
stricken from the bill, and the provision
in the bill creating the Missouri River
Commission has also been stricken out.
So that as the bill now stands, as I
understand, there is nothing in it which
would be prejudicial, or inimical, let me
say, to the creation of a Missouri Valley
Authority. As I understand, by the pas¬
sage of the bill we would take the first
step which the President recommended.
The second step would be the creation
of the Missouri Valley Authority. As I
stated previously, I favor a Missouri Val¬
ley Authority.
The distinguished senior Senator from
Louisiana, who is chairman of the sub¬
committee of the Committee on Com¬
merce, which handles all flood-control,
river-and-harbor, and waterway legisla¬
tion, is present, and I wondered if he
might not at this time make a statement
as to what his disposition would be in
the event the Missouri Valley Authority
bill should be referred, in the next Con¬
gress, to the Senate Committee on Com¬
merce.
Mr. OVERTON. If the Senator from
Montana will yield -
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. OVERTON. Of course, I do not
know whether the bill is to be referred
8751
to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
and I do not know whether I would be
chairman of the subcommittee which
would handle it, but in the event I should
be, I am willing to give assurance that
there would be no undue delay in taking
up the bill for hearings and for disposi¬
tion before the Committee on Commerce.
I talked with the chairman of the Com¬
mittee on Commerce late this afternoon,
and he stated he would proceed in the
usual course in handling this bill, and
that there would be no undue delay. I
do not think there has ever been any
undue delay on the part of the Commerce
Committee in connection with proposed
legislation.
Mr. MURRAY. The question of juris¬
diction in this case is a matter which of
course will be taken up in the next Con¬
gress. I do not concede that the bill
should properly go to the Committee on
Commerce, but, as I have said, that is a
question which will have to be deter¬
mined when the bill is reintroduced at
the next session. But I should like to
have the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry, who is pres¬
ent, express his views on this subject.
Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Pres¬
ident, if the Senator will yield, my State
does not happen to be in the Missouri
Valley. My State is in the Arkansas Val¬
ley. The junior Senator from Arkansas
has a bill pending proposing to create
an Arkansas Valley Authority. That is
very important, and I favor something
along that line, and I favor something
along the line of the Missouri Valley
Authority.
I will say that if in the next Congress
I am chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry, as I hope and
expect to be, and if the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry shall be given
jurisdiction of this subject matter, we
shall have before the committee not only
the Missouri Valley Authority bill, but
an Arkansas Valley Authority bill, and
upon request of the authors of the bills,
if they desire to have subcommittees ap¬
pointed, or desire to have the main com¬
mittee hold hearings, it will be my pleas¬
ure, and I hope my opportunity, to au¬
thorize the appointment of subcommit¬
tees immediately, or to have the entire
committee hold hearings. In other
words, I should like to cooperate, to the
end that full hearings may be had, and,
if possible and agreeable, a bill be re¬
ported and passed by the Senate at the
earliest possible moment.
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator
for his observation. When I introduced
the bill in the first instance, it was my
judgment trat it properly should go to
the Committee on Agriculture and For¬
estry, but at the time it was introduced,
the distinguished Senator from Wyo¬
ming asked that it also go to the Com¬
mittee on Irrigation and Reclamation.
Of course, if it goes to the two commit¬
tees, there would be no difficulty, I sup¬
pose, in holding a joint hearing, but it
does not seem to me it properly belongs
in the Committee on Commerce at all,
and I should prefer to see it in the Com¬
mittee on Agriculture and Forestry, be¬
cause then we would have an impartial
chairman, one who did not reside in the
8752
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
area involved, and one who would be in¬
clined to be more equitable in his con¬
sideration of the problem.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I call attention to the
fact that the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry has from the beginning
handled all the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority bills which have been introduced,
and I think they have been very well
handled. As everyone knows, the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority is a model of de¬
velopments of its kind. It appears to
me that producers should come first. I
presume there are upward of a million
farm families in the area drained by the
Missouri River and its tributaries; there
must be several hundred thousand, at
least. It jseems they should be given the
first consideration, and that transporta¬
tion should be incidental to production.
That is, we must have production before
we can have transportation. Therefore
the committee which has to deal with
the producers should have jurisdiction
over bills of this nature.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in view
of the expressions of the several Sena¬
tors who are interested in this subject, in
regard to the bill being considered in the
next Congress, and who have stated it
would be given sympathetic considera¬
tion at that time, I do not wish to pro¬
long the consideration of the flood-con¬
trol bill by offering my bill now as an
amendment, but I should like to present
briefly my views on the need of such an
authority so as to carry forward the
program which we are about to enact,
and I wish I could have the matter go
over until tomorrow morning to present
my views.
Mr. OVERTON. Would there be any
objection to our passing the bill at this
time, since there do not seem to be any
further amendments to be offered, and
tomorrow have the Senator make his
remarks in reference to the amendment
he proposes to offer next year, or the bill
which is now before the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry? Since it is
not to be offered as an am*endment to
this bill, can we not pass the bill now,
and the Senator can take advantage of
tomorrow’s session to make his obser¬
vations?
Mr. MURRAY. I should like my dis¬
cussion of the matter to be a part of the
debate and the consideration of the bill
which is now pending. It would be
somewhat irregular, it seems to me, to
pass a bill and to discuss it afterwards.
I should very much like, if the Senator
will permit me to do so, to discuss the
bill while it is still being considered*. I
assure the Senator now that I do not
intend to prolong consideration of the
pending bill, and I shall not offer my
amendment. I merely wish to present
my views.
Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield to me?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. GEORGE. I ask the Senator in
charge of the bill whether there are other
amendments to be considered to the bill?
Mr. OVERTON. So far as I am ad¬
vised, there are no other amendments to
the bill. Time is of the essence, not only
in undertaking this legislation but the
river-and-harbor legislation immediately
to follow; and if we postpone passage of
the bill another day, we simply have
lost 1 day.
Mr. MURRAY. We will be through
with it in an hour after the Senate con¬
venes tomorrow. Passage of the bill can
be had quickly tomorrow.
Mr. OVERTON. There is another
consideration. When the bill is finally
passed and it is printed the members of
the House Flood Control Committee will
want to study the bill, and they generally
keep such a bill under advisement a few
days so they may understand its pro¬
visions before they wish to go into con¬
ference with respect to it.
So there would be a day lost if we put
off the passage of the bill until tomor¬
row. If we pass the bill today it will be
immediately printed and go to the House.
I should be delighted to hear the Senator
on the bill, but I should like to have the
bill passed so it can go to conference. It
must go to conference. The House is not
going to agree to all the Senate amend¬
ments.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, it
seems to me I am saving a considerable
amount of time by withholding this
elaborate amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Oh, the Senator is,
and I am very much indebted to him, I
will say to him, and I thank him very
much.
Mr. MURRAY. The reading of the
amendment alone would take about an
hour. I think it would make me appear
very foolish if I were to undertake to
argue the matter after the bill had been
passed.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I won¬
der if it is possible at this time to fix by
unanimous consent an hour at which to
vote on the bill.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, if we were
to seek to fix an hour at which to vote on
the bill it would be necessary to have a
quorum call. The Senator knows that if
such a request were to be made it would
be necessary to have a quorum call. I
should not like to have suggestion of the
absence of a quorum at this time. I un¬
derstand the Senator from Montana will
speak about an hour on his proposal.
Mr. MURRAY. Yes. Mr. President,
in connection with my remarks, I ask to
have printed in the Record at this point
certain telegrams.
There being no objection, the telegrams
were ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows :
Great Falls, Mont., November 28, 1944.
Senator James E. Murray,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.; ~
This is to let you know that our organiza¬
tion is back of you in your work for M. V. A.
We feel we must not lose this fight.
Urge that no compromise be accepted and
if necessary, action on all pending legislation
be deferred until new Congress convenes.
Much sentiment can be aroused in country
for M. V. A. with more time.
D. W. Chapman,
President, Montana Farmers Union.
Helena, Mont., November 28, 1944.
Hon. James E. Murray,
Senate Office Building:
Montana people appreciate your efforts be¬
half M. V, A. Hope legislation on Missouri
November 30
development may be postponed until next
session of Congress.
Sam. W. Mitchell,
Secretary of State.
Wolf Point, Mont., November 29, 1944.
Senator James E. Murray,
Washington, D. C.:
In regular convention October 7 Farmers’
Union of McCone County endorsed the
M. V. A. bill unanimously. Please do all In
your power to prevent the bill from being
killed by “lame duck” session. Membership
of McCone County, 1,200.
O. B. Horsford,
Chairman, Resolution Committee.
Great Falls, Mont., November 29, 1944.
Senator James E. Murray,
Senate Office Building:
Have been in Montana a few days. Find
keen sentiment on your great fight for Mis¬
souri Valley Authority. If there is a possible
way of holding up final action until new
Congress convenes, we can give you solid
support.
H. D. Rolph,
. Vice President, National Farmers Union.
Butte, Mont., November 28, 1944.
Senator James Murray:
Keep up good work on M. V. A. Try to
stop any action until new Congress convenes.
Ed. C. Vawter,
Secretary, M. C. P. P. A.
Wolf Point, Mont., November 29, 1944.
Hon. James E. Murray,
United States Senator:
This organization composed of 450 mem¬
bers residing in the counties of McCone and
Roosevelt most urgently urge the passage
of the Missouri Valley Authority bill. They
foresee great possibilities in the use of waters
distributed over this entire valley by the use
of power already being developed at the Fort
Peck Dam and are full in accord with the bill
as now written. In the event of an attempt¬
ed defeat of this bill in this short session
they insist that no definite action be taken
until the regular session is organized. We
do not want this legislation defeated by a
few lame ducks who have a grudge they want
to fulfill.
Farmers Union Oil Co.,
P. R. Dougherty, Manager.
Denver, Colo., November 28, 1944.
Senator James E. Murray,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.:
Have wired Colorado, Wyoming, 'and New
Mexico Senators as follows: “Rocky Moun¬
tain Farmers Union feels no adequate solu¬
tion for regional river valley problems possible
through enactment of flood-control and riv¬
ers and harbors bills. Therefore we urge that
final action on these bills be postponed until
next session of Congress for better perma¬
nent solution. We vehemently protest any
shackling of public power program such as
that of Bailey amendment.”
Harvey R. Solberg,
President, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.
Salina, Kans., November 28, 1944.
Senator Murray of Montana,
Senate Building:
Our organization is bitterly opposed to the
flood-control and rivers and harbors bills
presently being considered. We abhor the
efforts of special Interest groups to pass leg¬
islation foreclosing the people’s rights to full
development and use of the vast resources of
our valleys. The bills now under considera¬
tion will waste vast sums of money in par¬
tial development of our river valleys for the
protection of and use by special-interest
groups. We urge you to use all of your Infiu-
ence to have these bills carried over to the
1944
8753
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
next session of Congress when time will be
available to give proper consideration to full
development of our valley resources In the
Interest of all of the people.
Kansas Farmers Union. »
E. K. Dean, President.
Chippewa Falis, Wis., November 28, 1944.
Senator James E. Murray,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.:
Present flood-control and rivers and har¬
bors bill should be delayed until next session.
They do not fulfill needs of people. We favor
both M. V. A. and St. Lawrence waterway
project as now proposed to serve all the peo¬
ple. Wisconsin Farmers Union on record for
a complete program in development of nat¬
ural resources that will serve farmers and
others to the fullest utilization of resources.
Wisconsin Farmers Union,
K. W. Hones, State President.
Butte, Mont.,
November 28, 1944.
Senator James E. Murray,
Washington, D. C.:
Organized, labor here feels that any further
action on flood-control bill in the absence of
establishment of Missouri Valley Authority
should be postponed until after the conven¬
ing of next Congress In 1945.
John Crawford.
Wolf Point, Mont.,
November 29, 1944.
Hon. James E. Murray,
United States Senator;
In contacting a great many of my neigh¬
bors and party associates in Rooseyelt County
they are unanimously of the opinion that
the Missouri Valley Authority bill should be
enacted as now written. They feel that this
measure is one of vital importance as a post¬
war project in the development of permanent
farming possibilities thereby furnishing em¬
ployment and homes for returning service¬
men.
Alex Sans.aver,
Chairman Democratic Central Com¬
mittee.
Jamestown, N, Dak.,
November 28, 1944.
Hon. James E. Murray,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.;
Sincerely hope you will do everything in
your power to defeat rivers and harbors bill
presently before Senate. If passed it will, in
my judgment, make impossible the creation
of an independent regional authority for uni¬
fied and complete development of the Mis¬
souri River’s resources as envisaged in Mur-
ray-Cochran bill. Our State Farmers Union
organizations in Montana, North Dakota,
Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas have already en¬
dorsed the MurrayrCochran bill. The
national Farmers Union in annual conven¬
tion at Denver, Colo., last week unanimously
endorsed the Murray-Cochran bill and also
unanimously recorded opposition to any
legislation which would prevent complete
unified development by a regional authority.
Members of national Farmers Union com¬
mittee on regional resource development are,
in addition to myself, D. W. Chapman, pres¬
ident. Montana Farmers Union; E. K. Dean,
■president, Kansas Farmers Union; Harvey R.
Solberg, president. Rocky Mountain Farmers
Union; John Skage, South Dakota Farmers
Union; Tom W. Cheek, president, Oklahoma
Farmers Union; Roland Jones, Oregon Farm¬
ers Union; Ed. Roellofs, Iowa Farmers Union;
Hans Hansen, Nebraska Farmers Union; R. W.
Hones, Wisconsin Farmers Union; Dr. M. E.
Dickinson, Arkansas Farmers Union. You
have the united support of Farmers Union in
your opposition to rivers and harbors bill now
before you.
National Farmers Union Committee
ON Regional Resources Develop¬
ment,
By Glen J. Talbott, Chairman.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the distinguished Sen¬
ator from Montana if he will yield so
that I may ask a question of the acting
majority leader.
Mr. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator
from Nebraska for that purpose.
Mr. WHERRY. I should like to ask
the distinguished Senator from Alabama
[Mr. Hill] if I correctly heard him say
in the statement he made a few mo¬
ments ago that he considered the passage
of this bill to be the first step toward
establishing the Missouri Valley Au¬
thority.
Mr. HILL. No; I said that the Presi¬
dent in his letter suggested two steps —
that two things be done. One was to
have the Congress consent to the agree¬
ment which had been reached between
the Bureau of Reclamation on the one
hand and the Army engineers on the
other hand. The second step which the
President suggested was the creation of
the Missouri Valley Authority.
Mr. WHERRY. I understand now
what the Senator from Alabama had in
mind. I simply want the Record to
show that, so far as I am concerned, I
shall vote for the pending bill on its
merits, and that when the proposal for
the establishment of a Missouri Valley
Authority comes up for consideration, I
shall consider it on its merits. I have
not given any thought to the Missouri
Valley Authority, and I do not want the
Record to show that I am voting on this
bill as a step toward anything, although
when the Missouri Valley Authority pro¬
posal comes before the Senate I shall
give it full consideration. I wish the
Record to show that, so far as I am con¬
cerned, I, as a Senator from Nebraska,
am voting for the passage of the pending
bill, which I hope will be passed, on the
merits of tjie bill itself.
Mr. MURRAY. As I understand the
Senator from Nebraska, there is no
prejudice against the proposed legisla¬
tion or against the proponents of the
proposed legislation.
Mr. WHERRY. In answer to the
question of the distinguished Senator I
wish to say that I have not committed
myself with respect to the Missouri Val¬
ley Authority. What I wish to have un¬
derstood is that I am not voting for the
pending bill with the idea that it is a
first step toward anything except what
is in the bill itself, and I believe in the
bill, and I want to go on record as saying
that I support it. When the proposal
with respect to the Missouri Valley Au¬
thority comes up for consideration we
will discuss it and take it up on its own
merits.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield. ^
Mr. HILL. The Senator from Ne¬
braska wishes to make it clear that in
voting for the bill he is not committing
himself to any future legislation.
Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. I am
not voting for anything except what is in
the pending bill itself.
Mr. MURRAY. Of course, when the
Missouri Valley measure comes up and
the Senator from Nebraska is shown how
important and how necessary it is to
establish the Missouri Valley Authority,
he will have no prejudice against it.
Mr. WHERRY. I will say to the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Montana that
when that moment arrives there is no
one in the Senate to whom the Senator
from Nebraska will give greater attention
than the Senator from Montana. He
will listen with the greatest respect and
consideration to the Senator’s explana¬
tion, and after the explanation is made,
the Senator from Nebraska will govern
himself accordingly. After hearing the
explanation which the Senator from
Montana will make the Senator from
Nebraska will make up his mind as to
whether he will support the bill.
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WHERRY. I will say, Mr. Presi¬
dent, that I have the highest respect for
the Senator as chairman of the Senate
Small Business Committee. He has been
a friend of small business and I will
give him close attention and considera¬
tion when he makes his explanation with
respect to Missouri Valley Authority.
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield so I may
make a motion that the Senate recess?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
a RECESS
Mr. HILL. I move that the Senate
'^ake a recess until 12 o’clock noon to-
njorrow.
The motion was agreed to; and (at
5 o'clock and 8 minutes p. m.) the Sen¬
ate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday,
Decen^ber 1, 1944, at 12 o’clock meridian.
A -
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate November 30 (legislative day of
November 21), 1944;
Diplomatic and Foreign Service
Alexander C. ^irk, of Illinois, now United
States representative on the Advisory Coun¬
cil for Italy, to be Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary* of the United States of
America to Italy
United States Public Health Service
The following-named ofllcers for appoint¬
ment and prorriotlon in the Regular Corps of
the United States Public Health Service:
To be assistant surgeons effective date of
oath of office:
Raymond F. Corpe
Reuben W. 'Wldmer
Assistant surgeons to be temporary passed
assisant surgeons effective dates indicated:
■William R. Rosanoff, October 1, 1944.
David F. Bradley, November 1, 1944.
Passed assistant surgeons to be temporary
surgeons effective dates indicated:
Waldron M. Sennott, October 1, 1944.
Edwin N. Hesbacher, November 1, 1944.
William S. Baum, November 1, 1944.
Surgeons to be temporary senior surgeons
effective November 1, 1944:
John D. Lane, Jr.
Robert K. Maddock
Charles R. Mallary
Senior sanitary engineers to be sanitary
engineer directors effective dates indicated:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE November 30, 1944
8754
Tfank R. Shaw, December 18, 1944.
Howard N. Old, December 16, 1944.
Passed- assistant dental surgeons to be
dental surgeons effective dates Indicated;
Robert H. Moore, November 16, 1944.
Frank E. Law, December 24, 1944.
Dental surgeons to be senior dental sur¬
geons effective December 1, 1944 :
Frederick W. Harper
Pendleton J. Slaughter
In the Navy
Capt. Frederick W. McMahon, United States
Navy, to be a commodore in the Navy, for
temporary service, to continue while serving
as chief of staff and aide to commander. Air
Force, United States Pacific Fleet.
Capt. Howard B. Macleary, United States
Navy, retired, to be a commodore in the Navy,
on the retired list, for temporary service, to
continue while serving as commanding offi¬
cer, United States Naval Advance Base, Es-
plritu Santo.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confii’med by
the Senate November 30 (legislative day
of November 21), 1944:
State Department
Edward R. Stettinlus, Jr., to be Secretary
of State.
Foreign Ser-vice
Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley, United States
Army, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to China.
Postmasters
ARKANSAS
»
Opal Mae Roland, Bryant.
Myrtle Cunningham. Callon.
Howard E. Powell, Gurdon. •
Manley E. Nation, Lamar.
Jesse C. Latta, Pollard.
Riley B. Emory, Rose Bud.
Don L. Van Horn. Weiner.
William Hall, Widener.
Alma T. Hamden, Wilson.
COLORADO
Otis Murray, Grand Valley.
Elmer E. Owen, Minturn.
Mary E. Harman, Pagosa Springs.
Charlotte Coffman, Penrose.
Irene E. Lee, Rico.
Alice L. Myers, Roggen.
HAWAH
Arthur Chong Kong, Halaula
Manuel F. Xavier, Puunene.
IOWA
Frank E. Barnes, Blakesburg.
Laura M. Rheingans, Bristow.
Bert Kirk, DrakesvUIe.
Ernest H. Brunsvold, Jolce.
Phoebe E. Stubbs, Lawton.
Norman L. Meyers, Liscomb.
Grover F. Eisele, Malcolm.
James A. Ward, Melrose.
Tom Olson. Okoboji.
Helen C. Jorstad, Wallingford.
MISSOURI
Opal B. McCann, Cooi;er.
Edward R. Sinnott, Edina.
Maude M. Fleming, Graham.
MONTANA
Hazel B. Gross, Wyola.
NEW" HAMPSHIRE
Charles Myers, Jaffrey.
NEW JERSEY
Frances McLaughlin, Blackwood Terrace.
L. Raymond Gunter, Columbia.
Samuel J. Billig, Mount Royal.
William T. Keeshan, Navesink.
Peter Klapmuts, Oak Ridge.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Carl H. Weir, Huron.
VIRGINIA
William H. Long, Buena Vista.
Alvah B. Chappell, Clarksville.
E. Paul Osborne, Dungannon.
Silas P. Hutchison, Herndon.
Eliza B. Kennedy, Jewell Ridge.
Marvin R. French, Pocahontas.
Charles G. Coppedge, Powhatan.
Lilllas L. Martin, Toms Creek.
William R. M. Moss, Virginia Beach.
Mazie C. Sanders, Warsaw.
WASHINGTON
Inez G. Spencer, Creston.
Edirthe Pottratz, Cowiche.
Carmel L. Bellinger, Gorst.
William O. Kurth, Grand Coulee.
Rose Champlin, Kennydale.
Minnie A. Hubble, Veradale.
WEST VIRGINIA
Eugene B. Keenan, Nellis.
Hazel M. Oliver, Pratt.
Myra D. Duncan, Rachel.
D. Watson Oxley, West Hamlin.
WITHDRAWALS
Executive nominations withdrawn
from the Senate November 30 (legislative
day of November 21), 1944:
Postmasters
WASHINGTON
Mrs. Lena A. Voreis to be postmaster at
Richmond Beach, in the State of Washing¬
ton.
WISCONSIN
Elmer White to be postmaster at Brown-
town, in the State of Wisconsin.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944
I
be sxire that the British member will not act
without the approval of the British Cabinet
who, under their parliamentary system, will
have to be sure of Parliament’s support and
who will also probably want to consult the
other members of the British Commonwealth.
Such an arrangement falls very short of
providing that unified executive command of
force needed to make it an effective instru¬
ment. Proof of that is found in the fact that
It is not relied upon to deal with either Ger¬
many or Japan. That weakness is not a defi¬
ciency of draftsmanship. It is a deficiency
Inherent in the present state of the world.
There are only two ways to assure that fcfrce
can be used effectively. One is the way of
despotism. That puts force under an execu¬
tive head who is free to use the force at his
own discretion. That way provides uneasy
security to those who are willing to buy it
at the price of freedom. The other way is
the way of free men. Through custom —
common law — or through a legislative body
they create a system of law adequate to regu¬
late human behavior. Then they delegate to
an executive the power and duty to enforce
those laws. The executive has no discretion,
but is bound to use force he controls without
fear or favor, and against great and small.
Those subject to law know in advance what
conduct will attract a penalty and what con¬
duct will assure protection.
That way was not, however, available to
the authors of the Dumbarton Oaks pro¬
posals. There is yet no world acceptance,
and therefore no effective definition, of
proper and improper national conduct. It
would not be enough to define and prohibit
national misconduct of the flagrant type.
For that would, by Inference, legitimatize
evasions. To illustrate, the modern tech¬
nique is to extend one’s national domain by
Internal penetrations. We used that method
to get control of the Panama Canal Zone, and
since then others have perfected it. The
difficulty of adequate definition is so great
that the Chinese failed when they sought to
incorporate in the Dumbarton Oaks pro¬
posals a definition of "aggression.” It seemed
that any definition which would give to some
the freedom to which they felt entitled might
also permit a license which might be abused
by others. Therefore it was decided that each
future International controversy, unless per¬
haps of the small “Justiciable” class, would
have to be dealt with as a mater of discretion.
It is difficult to quarrel with that conclu¬
sion, but it Involves attaching to force so
many strings that it cannot be an effective
Instrument of order. Thus, each of the na¬
tions so far participating in the plans for
world organization has accepted the right of
the Security Council to Invoke force, but on
the assumption that, through its representa¬
tive, it will have a string on its use. In the
case of the great powers, that veto power
will be reinforced by national military estab¬
lishments which will far surpass any peace
quotas which will be made available to the
world organization. Other prospective mem¬
ber states will also seek immunity from pos¬
sible arbitrary action by the council and they
may get it. If they do not get it directly, in
the form of a veto power in the council, they
may get it by side imderstandings with some
major power acting as their protector. Also,
even as now planned there must be at least
one concurring vote in the council by a small
state and five others will cast a vote which,
while not controlling, with be morally very
potent.
The cumulative result of all of this will
largely immobilize the force quotas. Pos¬
sibly their potentiality, on paper, will deter
some minor disturbances. However, their use
presupposes a political unanimity of the
great powers which has rarely occurred and
which, if it prevails, will Itself assure peace.
Our commission was aware of the diffi¬
culty of arranging for the responsible and
effective use of force in the absence of ade¬
quate and world-accepted definitions of
right and wrong conduct. We remembered
that behind the policeman stands the execu¬
tive, behind the executive stands a law¬
making body — and behind the law-making
body there exists the moral consensus of the
community. That is what is basic. Laws
are ineffective unless they reflect that, and
without laws there cannot be an executive —
other than a despot — and without an execu¬
tive there cannot be an effective admin¬
istration of police power.
The great obstacle to world order is the
lack of any universal moral Judgments
about national conduct. We cannot expect
that until national groups have worked to¬
gether in peace. Men harmonize and
clarify their views about good and bad con¬
duct when they are associated in common
tasks. Victory in war is such a task, but
there is so far no counterpart in peace.
It is that which we would supply and it
is that which our six pillars make primary.
We want world organization to bring the
nations together to work for stable eco¬
nomic and monetary conditions; to keep the
treaty structure of the world abreast of
chajiglng underlying conditions; to make
autonomy the genuine goal of colonial ad¬
ministration and to assure to Individuals
everywhere spiritual and Intellectual liberty.
Out of working together on such great tasks
there can come a common Judgment of what
is decent national conduct, and a general
agreement that, in matters of common con¬
cern, the general welfare should take prece¬
dence. That will, on the one hand, greatly
reduce the occasions for the use of force,
on the other hand it will make it possible
to arrange so that force can be quickly and
decisively used, when It needs to be used
at all.
We can feel encouraged. The Dumbarton
Oaks proposals contain great possibilities.
The Economic and Social Council and re¬
lated agencies can do much to develop fel¬
lowship among the nations. There still ex¬
ists a possibility of broadening such func¬
tions so that they even more fully conform
to our six pillars of peace program. The
Security Council can be a forum where con¬
troversial matters are discussed, where pub¬
lic opinion may focus its pressures and where
conflicting theories about national conduct
may become reconciled. The World Court
can be used to extend the reign of law. All
of this can gradually engender the moral
basis needed for a complete constitutional
order.
The important thing is that we be realistic
about the proposals and see their practical
potentialities and work to develop them. In
the present state of the world, the force
proposals, as I say, are little more than
scenery. We need not concentrate upon
them all our concern. They alone cannot
breathe life — either good life or bad life — into
the world organization. Once we realize
that, we can disengage ourselves from much
of the current controversy about force and
devote ourselves to developing those phases
of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which can
really give vitality to world organization.
To achieve world-wide fellowship, to pro¬
mote Judgments which reflect the moral law,
are tasks for which the Christian churches
are peculiarly qualified. Only the discharge
of those tasks can bring to world organiza¬
tion the elements of solid reality. We can
carry on with confidence, knowing that in
this matter also the Christian approach is
the realistic approach,
ADDRESS BY THE MOST REVEREND J.
SHEIL, D. D., AT C. I. O. CONVENTION
[Mr. MALONEY asked and obtained leave
to have printed In the Record the address
delivered by the Most Revered J. Shell, D. D.,
at the C. I. O. convention, Stephens, Hotel,
Chicago, November 20, 1944, which appears in
the Appendix.]
8785
THE TREATY-MAKING POWER
[Mr. AIKEN asked and obtained leave to
have printed in the Record an article by
Ralph W. Page, entitled “Senate Two-thirds
Rule Paces Show-down,” published in the
Philadelphia Bulletin of November 25, 1944,
and an editorial entitled “Majority Rule,”
published in the Nashville Tennessean of
November 25, 1944, which appear in the
Appendix.]
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the
construction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill Is
open to further amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the de¬
bate which has been proceeding during
the past week has brought forcibly to
our attention and to the attention of the
American people the need for some care¬
fully planned, scientific method for the
unified development of our great river
basins.
For many years the complex problems
of floods, droughts, soil erosion, seepage,
silting, reforestation, and resource de¬
velopment have been under the jurisdic¬
tion of several conflicting Federal agen¬
cies — each one catering to some particu¬
lar interest and seeking to solve some
particular problem. Oftentimes these
interests have been in conflict with each
other. This situation has frequently
brought into play arguments and dis¬
putes between these conflicting agencies
blocking any unified program for the
permanent solution of these problems.
On the lower stretches of the Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers, for example, the
problem has been exclusively one of
floods. The endeavors of the people in
those regions have been devoted entirely
to protecting their homes and factories
and schools and hospitals from being
submerged annually by raging floods
often reaching catastrophic proportions.
The people in those sections may be said
to have develdped a sort of flood com¬
plex. All they can thinlc of is the prob¬
lem of escaping from destruction each
year by building levees and embankments
and taking similar protective measures.
At the same time, the people in the upper
reaches of the river have had to battle
not only with periodic flood visitations
but have had other problems, such as
drought and soil erosion, to struggle with.
Then there are others within the same
watershed whose main interest is navi¬
gation.
The disastrous flood of June 1942, in¬
undated tens of thousands of acres of
fertile bottom lands, and rendered home¬
less thousands of people. The people of
the valley had hardly had time to re¬
cuperate from that disaster, the like of
which had not been known since 1903,
when the valley suffered three intensive
floods in 1943, when more than 7,000,000
acres of land were submerged, and
damage to the communities estimated
at more than $153,000,000 was caused.
While these problems have been
mounting, while the lives of millions of
our people in the Missouri watershed
have been in constant jeopardy, the
8786
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
December 1
struggle of the conflicting interests has
been going on unabated.
Thu situation was very clearly illus¬
trated by the remarks of the distin¬
guished senior Senator from Missouri
[Mr. Clark] on the floor of the Senate
a few days ago. The Senator spoke only
of protecting the States on the lower
stretches of the river from the recurrent
floods. The Senator said:
This is a flood-control bill and is necessary
because frequently in my section, we are
under the water. The Senator from Mon¬
tana may not be so much Interested in it,
but down at my end of the Missouri Valley,
we are under the water every year. We have
had as many as two or three floods a year,
and the whole theory of setting up a Mis¬
souri Valley commission is simply that while
we pursue the present system of keeping the
water off us so far as we can, we adopt the
methods which have been used in the lower
Mississippi Valley.
Continuing his address, the distin¬
guished Senator from Missouri said :
The Senator from Montana, who lives on
the upper reaches of the Missouri River, is
in a position to regard the whole problem
from an extremely theoretical view. I never
In my life lived more than 15 miles from the
Mississippi River and 20 miles from the Mis¬
souri River. I happen to live Where the
flood problems actually exist, and I therefore
regard the subject from an extremely prac¬
tical standpoint, not from a theoretical
standpoint, not from reading newspaper edi¬
torials, not from reading Dave Lilienthal’s
book, not from reading anything of that
sort. I regard it from the standpoint of a
man who lives under the floods which come
down.
Mr. President, of course, we all are
In complete sympathy with the problem
described by the distinguished Senator
from Missouri, afflicting the people along
the lower reaches of the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. It is because we fully
appreciate the disastrous effects of these
recurring floods and are desirous of
working out a program which will meet
these problems successfully, and rescue
the people of the suffering States from
these annual devastations, that a Mis¬
souri Valley Authority is imperative.
The M. V. A. iS'not based upon theory
alone. That charge might have been
leveled at the original T. V. A. bill when
it was under debate in the Congress of
the United States. From the experi¬
ences gained and the lessons taught as
shown by the record of the Tennessee
Valley Authority during the past 11
years, and from the manner in which
it continues to operate, we know that
the M. V. A. is no longer a mere theory,
but is a sound and proven program.
It has demonstrated that it is more
economical than any other method of
regional development. It is the only
way to bring about a unified development
of the entire region in the best interests
of all. Above all, we know that it is
the most democratic way of doing the
job that must be done in the Missouri
Basin.
The theory of working out a solution
from the standpoint of flood control
alone has failed. It has failed continu¬
ally for many years. Constant dredg¬
ing and the building of levees and em¬
bankments have failed to solve the prob¬
lem of navigation and flood control.
Handling this problem by the piecemeal
method will never bring relief to the
people in the Missouri Valley or any
other valley. This is the considered
opinion of outstanding engineers and
students of the problem and is not the
product of mere theorizers.
Today, we are riding the crest of war¬
time prosperity. Our factories are pro¬
ducing at full blast. Everybody who
wants a job can find one. Yet when the
fighting is over, we will no longer be able
to depend upon wartime production and
wartime spending to keep our economy in
high gear. War contracts will be can¬
celed. Many war factories will be shut
down. Ten million returning servicemen,
and millions of men and women who are
now working in our factories, fields, and
mines will be looking for employment.
During the past few months, it has
been my privilege to take an active part
in the writing of many bills that have
been described as post-war legislation.
I am referring to the Contract Settle¬
ment Act, the Surplus War Property Act,
and the Mobilization and Reconversion
Act.
Yet these measures were almost en¬
tirely limited to the liquidation of war
production. They were not intended to
come to grips with the fundamental
problems of providing full employment
in the post-war period.
During the months which lie ahead of
us, the people of our country will be
looking to the Congress for afBrmative
post-war legislation to assure an ex¬
panding post-war economy that will
guarantee opportunity and security for
industry, labor, and agriculture.
I visualize a great post-war expansion
in aeronautics, in railroad transporta¬
tion, in plastics, in light alloys, in elec¬
tronics, in housing and in many other
fields of private enterprise.
I visualize constructive legislation by
Congress in the fields of social security
assistance for small business, taxation,
and international trade — as a means of
promoting the expansion of private bus¬
iness enterprise.
Yet, by themselves, these measures will
not be enough. Let us not forget that
total national production is now running
at a level of $200,000,000,000 a year — and
that almost half of this is for war pro¬
duction. It has been estimated that if
after the war we allow the total national
production to go back to the level of 1940,
we shall have in this country 19,000,000
unemployed men and women.
Clearly, we need new and additional
programs to provide the expansion that
will be necessary to avert another eco¬
nomic crisis.
During the last depression, the crea¬
tion of the Tennessee Valley Authority
was an important factor in helping to
carry us forward on the road to recovery.
In this period, I submit, the creation of
the Missouri Valley Authority and of
similar agencies in the other great river
basins of the country will be a decisive
factor in avoiding a post-war depression
and in providing an increasingly higher
standard of living for the people of our
country.
There is much talk these days about
helping small business. Well, let us do
something concrete to help the thou¬
sands of small businessmen in the Mis¬
souri Valley and of the other great river
basins of our country — by providing com¬
prehensive river-valley programs that
will bring cheap power and cheap trans¬
portation within the reach of every small
businessman.
We talk much these days about pre¬
paring plans for returning soldiers and
sailors. The program I have described
will open new opportunities for our fight¬
ing men — opportunities to develop land
thst has been reclaimed, opportunities
to embark upon fruitful small-business
enterprises of their own.
We talk about the post-war welfare of
our farmers. Let us not confine ourselves
merely to developing new methods of
subsidizing farm distress after it has oc¬
curred. Let us provide an integrated
program for our major river basins that
will protect the soil of our country and
help to build an expanding and self-
sustaining agricultural economy.
We talk about post-war planning.
Well, the proposal to establish seven
T. V. A.’s throughout our land is post¬
war planning in the most concrete, most
practical, and most effective form that
has yet been presented to the Senate of
the United States.
If we are to reach the economic goal
which President Roosevelt has set — an
annual national income of $150,000,000,-
000 — it is necessary that the vast Mis¬
souri River be developed by a Missouri
Valley Authority and that similar de^
velopments should take place in other
river basins of the Nation. EveryJ)ody
is in agreement that the country must
have new developments — industrial and
agricultural — if there is not to be a slump
in the post-war period. This wide de¬
velopment and expansion of industry
cannot take place wholly in the eastern
sections of the country. The Eastern
States are already overpopulated, in the
opinion of individuals who have made a
careful study of the subject. The Mis¬
souri Valley is one of America’s great
frontiers. We have the raw materials
and the soil and the forests and the
water. All that is needed is the applica¬
tion of a tried and tested system of de¬
velopment and exploitation. That work
can be done successfully and economi¬
cally only through a Missouri Valley Au¬
thority.
Mr. President, who is there who would
deny that the world peace for which we
are striving will depend on economic
prosperity? Who is there who would
deny that the prosperity of the world de¬
pends on the prosperity of the United
States of America?
Mr. President, no one would accuse
me of exaggerating when I say that the
prosperity of America — and hence the
welfare of the world — depends to a large
extent upon the vision and the corn-age
of those who represent our people in this
Congress of the United States. In the
days that lie ahead, there will be many
great issues to test our vision and our
courage — and I have a deep and stubborn
faith that we shall not fail.
And by that token, it is my conviction
that the next session of the Congress will
see the creation of a Missouri Valley Au-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
1944
thorlty, and similar authorities in other
areas, as an integral and indispensable
part of our national program for full em¬
ployment and prosperity.
On November 27, 1944, the President
of the United States addressed a com¬
munication to the Senate reiterating his
recommendations that a Missouri Valley
Authority be created. The President
stated that the technical differences in
the reports submitted to the Congress by
the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Corps of Engineers relating to the de¬
velopment of the Missouri River have
been reconciled.
This so-called joint plan of the two
Federal agencies, the President points
out, represents merely a beginning in the
solution of the problems of the Missouri
Valley. It is only a beginning, as the
President points out, because there are
other important matters not within the
scope of the joint report which bear very
materially upon the entire region of the
Missouri Valley. The President there¬
fore concludes that only a single author¬
ity, such as the Tennessee Valley Au¬
thority, could and would provide the nec¬
essary mechanism for the adjustment of
the interests of the States in the Mis¬
souri watershed.
In order that there may be no ques¬
tion as to what he believes would be best
for the divergent interests of the nine
States of the Missouri watershed, the
President says;
A single authority, such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority, over the entire region would
provide an adequate mechanism for the ad¬
justment of the interests of the States and
for the planning and development of the en¬
tire valley. ^
Mr. President, I ask that the Presi¬
dent’s message be printed in the Record *
at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hall
in the chair) . Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The President’s message is as follows:
November 27, 1944.
The PRESIDENT of the Senate.
Sir: On September 21, 1944, I sent a mes¬
sage to the Congress recommending the crea¬
tion of a Missouri Valley Authority that
would be charged with the duty of preparing
and carrying out a single coordinated plan
for the development of the Missouri River
Basin for the greatest benefit of its citizens,
both present and future, and for the greatest
benefit to the United States. At that time
there was under consideralkjon by4;he Con¬
gress two reports, the one presented by the
Corps of Kngineqrs, the other by the Bureau
of Reclamation, which, while presenting com¬
prehensive plans for the development of the
Missouri River, were in conflict in many
details. The two Bureaus have reconciled
the technical differences in these two re¬
ports and have prepared a Joint recommen¬
dation which, in conjunction with the two
reports, constitutes a basic plan for the de¬
velopment and control of the waters of the
Missouri River.
This Joint plan represents a beginning in
the solution of the problems of the Missouri
Valley. But it is only a beginning, for other
important matters not within the scope ol
this Joint report bear very materially upon
the entire region. As a practical matter,
most of these cannot be dealt with by confer¬
ence and agreement among the States di¬
rectly involved working with separate Fed¬
eral agencies, for the delay in getting action
would be too great to bring about the objec¬
tives important to the economy of the en¬
tire region. A single authority; such as the
Tennessee Valley Authority, over the entire
region would provide an adequate mecha¬
nism for the adjustment of the interests of
the States and for the planning and devel¬
opment of the entire valley.
I am transmitting herewith a copy of that
report of reconciliation, together with ac¬
companying papers. I now recommend that
the plans of the two Bureaus, published in
House Document No. 475, Seventy-eighth
Congress, and Senate Document No. 191, Sev-
entyreighth Congress, as modified in accord¬
ance with recommendations of this Joint
report, be authorized as a basic engineering
plan to be developed and administered by a
Missouri Valley Authority, such as I have
already recommended in my message of Sep¬
tember 21.*
Sincerely yours, /
Franklin D. Roosbwelt.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in
recommending the authorization by the
Congress of the plans of the two bu¬
reaus, President Roosevelt makes it clear
that they are to constitute “a basic en¬
gineering plan to be developed and ad¬
ministered by a Missouri Valley Au¬
thority.”
When the T. V. A. was created 11 years
ago, it was dn a true sense a return to
the spirit and vision of the pioneer. It
was not intended to benefit the Ten¬
nessee Valley region alone. One of the
compelling reasons for setting up the
T. V. A. was that the country and the
Congress of the United States were fed
up with pork-barrel projects, such as
dishing out millions of the taxpayers’
money to dredge Podunk Creek, which
solved no problem and was merely de¬
signed to benefit some company that got
the contract and which, jnore often than
not, proved to be unproductive of any
public benefit. Enlightened citizens and
legislators were disappointed by this
unbusinesslike approach to a serious
problem.
Businessmen and scientists are fa¬
miliar with the term “pilot plant.” Well,
T. V. A. was designed to throw the light
of actual experience — not just talk or
theorizing, but actual experience — on the
development of resources by a new meth¬
od and a new principle. Eleven years
ago, in setting up the T. V. A., Cohgress
created a pilot plant designed to show
the way river valleys could be most suc¬
cessfully developed for the benefit of all
the people and not merely to satisfy the
greedy appetites of the few.
The T. V. A., in other words, while
developing the Tennessee Valley was de¬
signed to be a fact-finding undertaking
which might guide us in developing sim¬
ilar valleys throughout the Nation.
Of course, I concede that valleys dif¬
fer. In the Tennessee Valley there is
ample rainfall, while parts of the Mis¬
souri Valley suffer from drought and
need irrigation. But once a principle of
regional development is demonstrated to
ber sound, it can and should be adapted
to any region’s particular physical con¬
ditions.
Mr. President, I shall later review the
accomplishments of the T. V. A., but
first, I should like to dwell for a moment
on the contribution which this so-called
pilot plant has made not alone to the
progress and prosperity of the people of
8787
the Tennessee Valley, but to the success¬
ful prosecution of the present world
struggle in which we are engaged, and
to the saving of our Nation and all peace-
loving peoples from the two barbarian
enemies with which we are now locked in
mortal combat.
The blunt fact is that without the elec¬
tric power which the T. V. A. has been
able to squeeze out of the waters of the
Tennessee River at an early and critical
phase of the war, the fortunes of the
United Nations might have been much
less promising than they are today. Per¬
mit me to read a brief quotation from a
war correspondent who recently returned
from the battle fronts of the world, deal¬
ing with the T. V. A.’s role in helping to
shorten the war. In his recent book en¬
titled “They ShaU Not Sleep,” Leland
Stowe said that had it not been for the
T. V. A. “American war production would
have been reduced and delayed so greatly
that the duration of this war would have
been prolonged by very many months.”
Mr. President, it is not difficult to' vis¬
ualize what this would have meant to the
millions of men in the war zones and
their relatives at home. I shall not
speak of the additional billions of dol¬
lars it would have cost the taxpayers.
It would have meant thousands upon
thousands more of casualties in the ranks
of the American and Allied armed forces.
During the critical days of the sum¬
mer of 1940, the country turned to the
T. V. A. for electric power in vast quan¬
tities — for the magic power which is the
very lifeblood of modern war. By au¬
thority of the Congress, the T. V. A. be¬
gan building 12 major dams at one
time — the largest job of construction
ever confronting any single organization
in the history of this country. And by
the time the Japs struck their treacher¬
ous blow at Pearl Harbor on December
7, 1941, T. V. A.’s first wartime dam
was completed. Other emergency dams
followed in rapid succession, under
schedules of speed that broke one world
record after another.
The construction of airplanes means
aluminum and more aluminum. Alumi¬
num is chiefly the product of electric
power. The average single heavy bomber
represents as much electric power as
would be consumed by the average Amer¬
ican family over a period 400 years ; and
there are thousands of such bombers
over the Nazi nests in Germany every
night. In that fateful June of 1940,
while we faced the certain prospects of
war, the United States did not have
enough electric power to make alumi¬
num for war planes in the vast quantities
needed to outstrip the Axis air superi¬
ority. Every American should feel proud
of this achievement I have described.
We should all thank God for the vision
and courage of those who fought the
enemies of the T. V. A. legislation. The
achievements of the T. Y. A. in this
alone — the production of electric power
for the output of aluminum for the air¬
craft industry — more than justifies aU
the outlays of the Nation on the creation
of the Tennessee "Valley Authority.
In these jiays of global warfare it is
Important that our lines of communi-
8788
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
December 1
cation be kept In constant operation,
that our normal life go on without in¬
terruption, and that undue strain be
kept away from the construction indus¬
try. This means the controlling of
floods which periodically ravage our
communities. This past spring the Ten¬
nessee Valley, too, experienced record-
breaking rainfall, but no floods resulted
there. There was no Interruption of
!work in the war industries, no lives were
lost, no communication lines disrupted,
no agricultural production stopped. The
same dams of the T. V. A. that pro¬
tected the people from the swollen riv¬
ers simultaneously produced electric
power for the munitions plants and the
aircraft factories.
But a short distance away the people
were not so fortunate. The people in
the Missouri Valley experienced a sec¬
ond great flood in 2 years. It spread
Into the Mississippi River from just
above St. Louis down to Cairo, and far
beyondi^ The whole region was dislo¬
cated, affecting industry, railroads,
farms, schools, and food supplies.
Mr. President, that is why the people
of the Missouri Valley and the people of
our whole country are so interested in
the creation of the M. V. A. at the earliest
possible time. It is inconceivable to me
that anyone familiar with the achieve¬
ments of the T. V. A. could possibly op¬
pose our desire to apply to the Missouri
Valley the basic principles we have found
so successful in solving identical prob¬
lems in the Tennessee Valley.
Mr. President, it is our duty to ponder
carefully the reasons why a single au¬
thority should be entrusted with the vital
problems of the Missouri River Valley,
I am confident that my colleagues in the
Senate will wholeheartedly rally to the
support of tlie M. V. A. legislation and
help speed the adoption of such a law
, when they study the record of the T. V. A.
I realize that there are many Senators
here who know far more than I about
the T. V. A. — because of the active part
they have taken in supporting and
strengthening the Tennessee Valley pro¬
gram. I am confident that at the proper
jtime they will lend their powerful sup-
■ port to the extension of this program to
the other great river basins of the coun¬
try.
’ Like 'the work of the T. V. A., the task
to be carried out in the Mi^ouri Valley
is not new. Since the beginning of our
national history the people have from
time to time placed upon the Federal
Government responsibility for the devel¬
opment of our natural resources. For
more than a century it was the Federal
Government that shouldered the respon¬
sibility of making and keeping rivers
navigable.
The same has been true, of the con¬
trolling of floods. For many years the
Federal Government developed and
marketed electric power. The farmer
has been looking to the Federal Govern¬
ment for soil conservation: mineral re¬
search has been a Federal function and
has been of immeasurable value to the
mining industry. Year in and year out,
this Congress has been appropriating
millions of dollars — nay, tens of millions
of dollars — to maintain a whole depart¬
ment dedicated to the task of advising
and helping businessmen, whose enter¬
prises are based on the development or
handling of the natural resources of the
Nation.
Thus most of the specific undertakings
assigned to the T. V. A. by the Congress
of the United States were long familiar
activities of the Federal Government.
Nevertheless, the same baseless outcries
which we hear today against the M. V. A.
were heard in the days when the now
successful T. V. A. undertaking was still
in the realm of a mere proposal awaiting
action by Congress.
What was new about the plan of the
T. V. A., and which is also new about the
proposed M. V. A., is that for 'the first
time in our history a public body was
given a unified responsibility to see that
in one particular area the total job was
done, that the opportunities of water and
soil and forests and men were to be
viewed as one problem, accepting the
truism that they were indivisible, unified,
and interrelated. That is their position
in nature; that is the only way they are
in the life of men.
That land and forest and water and
minerals were interrelated and indivis¬
ible was no secret as early as 1933. It
was then clear, as it is even clearer today,
that what happened to one was bound to
affect the fate of the other. It was quite
elementary then, as it is now, that the
well-being of men and women on the
farms depended upon the purchasing
power of the men and women who live in
the cities.
Is there anyone .who would deny the
fact that navigation and industry and
minerals and farm crops are not separate
problems in the life of men? Since the
enactment of the T. V. A. legislation the
unity of those problems has become more
and more apparent. Unfortunately cer¬
tain people, whether because of igno¬
rance or for some other reasons, seem to
desire to obstruct the march of progress.
Jhey arbitrarily seek to divide those
problems according to the pigeonholes of
historical accident and tradition. So we
find one bureau taking charge of one
problem and handling it without regard
for the effects it may have upon a related
problem handled by another bureau.
One group of officials in Washington
busied themselves with making a certain
river navigable; another department was
concerned with fish in that river, or the
wildlife along its shores, or the soil of the
valley, or the minerals of the same region,
despite the fact that the fate of those
very resources was affected by every
change occurring in the river and by
every use it was put to by men.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. HILL. I have been very much in¬
terested in what the Senator has had to
say about the Tennessee Valley Author¬
ity. As a Member of the House of Repre¬
sentatives at the time when the Tennes¬
see Valley Authority Act was written, as a
member of the House Committee on Mili¬
tary Affairs which had jurisdiction over
that act, and as one who played a small
part in the writing and passage of that
act, I think it can well be said that the
Tennessee Valley Authority has sur¬
passed even the highest and fondest
hopes and expectations of .its authors.
I think one reason why it has had such
magnificent success and has rendered
such great and far-reaching services to
the people of the Tennessee Valley, as
well as to the people of the entire country,
has been that the problems to which the
Senator has so well adverted are being
handled by. the Tennessee Valley Author¬
ity as a unit. They are being handled
together as one great problem, which
they are.
The mistake of the past has been in
large measure in endeavoring to separate
these problems and to have one agency
handle one problem and another agency
handle another problem. To obtain the
best results, to secure the maximum
benefits and services for the people and
for the regions affected, the various
problems must be handled as the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority has handled
them; namely, as a unit.
I wish to take this opportunity again
to commend the Senator from Montana
for his devotion and for- his continued
and unfailing efforts to bring -before the
Congress and before the people of the
Nation the need and necessity for the
Missouri Valley Authority.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for his very illuminating re¬
marks and for the encouragement he
gives me.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield,
Mr. AIKEN. I must confess that I
have not yet . read the Senator’s biU
through, but I wish he would tell us a
■little at this time about what the rela¬
tionship between the Missouri Valley Au¬
thority and the State and local govern¬
ments would be under the provisions of
his bill. Is authority to be granted for
levying taxes of any kind under the Mis¬
souri Valley Authority bill? What are
the provisions for the building of new
highways and the relocating of other
highways? How far could the author¬
ity go in establishing parks or even camps
or schools or in performing other func¬
tions which naturally come under State
and local governments? Can the Sen-
atoi^ tell us something about that? I as¬
sure him that I am very much interested
in his proposal.
Mr. MURRAY. The bill, as finally
formulated, will contain provisions cov¬
ering all the matters to which the Sen¬
ator from Vermont has adverted. All
these matters will be handled under this
measure in the same manner in which
they are handled under the T. V. A. It
will contain provisions for a method of
compensating the localities wherein it
operates for failure to receive taxes on
its property. The exact provisions of the
bill in that respect I will not undertake
to detail at this time, but I may say that
when the bill is finally brought up for
hearing it will be given thorough study,
and all the matters to which the Senator
has adverted will be found to have been
given recognition in the legislation.
Mr. AIKEN. I am to understand then
that the provisions will be roughly sim-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
liar to those contained in the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. In other words, the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority pays no taxes on
Its own property, but it does compensate
the States by the payment of a percen¬
tage of its income or some such method.
Mr. MURRAY. That is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. What has been the ex¬
perience of the T. V. A., according to
the Senator’s knowledge, with local and
State governments?
Mr. MURRAY. I understand it has
the very highest approval and commen¬
dation of the local people; and the con¬
tribution it is making to the communities
Is a substantial one, and is increasing.
I am sure that the contribution the Mis¬
souri Valley Authority will make to the
region in which it will operate will also
be very great and that it will meet with
the entire approval of the people in the
area Involved.
Mr. AIKEN. Is the Senator satisfied
that the recompense to the local and
State governments would far exceed any
losses which might be incurred?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes. I am inclined to
think that it will be much greater than
the taxes which might have been col¬
lected.
Mr. AIKEN. That will not include the
new developments which are bound to
follow the development of power and
others resources, of course.
Mr. MURRAY. That is correct. In
addition, of course, as a result of its ac¬
tivities, it will create a vast amount of
new taxable property which will vastly
Increase the total taxes paid in the area
involved. That is a matter which should
be remembered, because as a result of
this development there will be a tremen¬
dous increase in taxable values.
Mr. AIKEN. Will it have the result of
lowering production costs and transpor¬
tation costs and thereby benefiting con¬
sumers who may be, perhaps, -2,000 miles
away from the actual site of the develop¬
ment?
Mr. MURRAY. That is absplutely
true. It will also reduce electric-power
charges, and that will result in great sav¬
ings to the people in the area of the de¬
velopment.
(At this point Mr. Murray yielded to
Mr. McFarland, who asked for the con¬
sideration of House bill 3592, and debate
ensued, which appears in today’s Record
at the conclusion of Mr. Murray’s
remarks.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in re¬
suming my discussion I wish to express
my appreciation of the contribution
made by the distinguished Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Hill] a few moments ago.
I realize, as I have said during the course
of my remarks, that many Senators are
more familiar with the subject and with
problems which were solved by T. V. A.
than I am. I know that the distin¬
guished Senator from Alabama made a
very considerable contribution to the en¬
actment of the T. V. A. legislation, as did
the distinguished Senator from Ten¬
nessee [Mr. McKellar], and the late
George W. Norris, of Nebraska, and many
other Senators whom I am unable to
name because I was not a Member of the
Senate during that period. I desire to
thank the Senator from Alabama espe¬
cially for his very illuminating remarks
a few moments ago.
The creation of the Missouri Valley
Authority, Mr. President, is one of the
major links in translating into reality
the supreme plan before our people,
which is to make this country the best
place on the face of the earth. This is
particularly imperative at this stage of
our history when such frontiers as were
available, for example, after the Amer¬
ican Civil War, are no longer present.
Then the problem of the returned north¬
ern soldier was solved by giving him a
homestead on the western frontier.
With the possible exception of Alaska,
there is no section of the United States
where the young man with little or no
capital and limited experience can set
his roots. Farming today cannot and
should not be started without substan¬
tial capital, proper equipment, and care¬
ful training and experience. Even then,
as has been proved during recent depres¬
sions, the best and most skillful farmers
go bankrupt. There are large areas of
the country where the small farmer finds
it almost impossible to compete with a
giant agricultural enterprise operated on
a factory basis, with huge machines and
regiments of poorly paid farm hands liv¬
ing in barracks. •
Some of the vast power projects, such
as those in the Pacific Northwest, will
bring irrigation to arid or semiarid re¬
gions and thus make possible the crea¬
tion of a large number of new small
farms suitable for rather individualistic
types of farming like fruit and dairy
enterprises. But even here, the rule that
the farmer must have money, experience,
and aptitude holds good; and in any case
these irrigated areas must be greatly ex¬
panded if they are to take care of more
than a very small proportion of the re¬
turning solders. I realize that if the irri¬
gation projects which are contemplated
by the measure now before the Senate
are completed they will provide for a very
substantial program of settlement by re¬
turned soldiers when this war is over;
but agriculture is not the only answer to
the veterans’ employment problem. At
the same time the pledges made by the
President to our people must be re¬
deemed. The benefits which could come
to the people of the Missouri Valley as a
result of the application to that region of
the principles we have found so effective
in the Tennessee Valley constitute a part
of, our pledge to the people. It would
help open up new opportunities, new
frontiers to the people of the valley and
to many thousands more outside the
valley.
The M. V. A. idea has been branded by
its enemies as idealistic, as authoritarian,
as a number of other unpleasant things.
Fortunately, we now know too much
about how a valley authority works to
accept such charges when they have
practical answers. From the experiences
of and the lessons taught by the history
of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
from the way it operates, we know the
M. V. A. idea is a sound business propo¬
sition, that it is more economical than
other methods of regional development,
8789
that it is the only way to bring unity for
the good of all to a region that is now
divided over special interests. Above all,
we know that it is the most democratic
way and the most efficient way of doing
a job that has got to be done in the Mis¬
souri Basin.
T. V. A. moves highly trained crews,
highly specialized equipment such as
concrete pourers, hammerhead cranes,
and the like, and highly specialized
housing for construction workers from
job to job. Other agencies. Army engi¬
neers, and Reclamation Bureau do most
of their work through contract or by
force account. Obviously, the T. V. A.
method is the soundest business method
from the standpoint of construction. It
is believed that the Sloan estimate of
$1,350,000,000 for the combined plan of
Bureau and engineers could be cut to not
more than $1,100,000,000 by eliminat¬
ing unnecessary dams and by the T. V. A.
method of construction.
SOUND BUSINESS PROPOSITION
The idea, in T. V. A., as in an M. V. A.,
Is to apply the corporation principle, as
developed by private enterprise, to
fields of development which are tradi¬
tionally those of the Federal Govern¬
ment. The administrative problems re¬
sulting from trying to develop the Mis¬
souri Basin by half a dozen different
Government agencies would create an
appalling situation. To do a job simi¬
lar to that done in the Tennessee Val¬
ley it would take the best work of these
agencies, to name a few: Reclamation
Bureau, Army Engineers, Bureau of
Mines, Department of Agriculture, and
United States Geological Survey, Office
of Indian Affairs, Rural Electrification
Administration, Federal ^ower Commis¬
sion. How can they be coordinated?
Is it good business to continue that kind
of scrambled, wasteful, piecemeal ap¬
proach to a big job when there is on
hand a businesslike administrative
method of doing it — a method that has
been tried and found wondrously suc¬
cessful in the Tennessee Valley? Which
is likely to cost the taxpayers of the
whole country more? The answer is sim¬
ple. The answer is practical, M. V. A.
is good business.
UNITY
The Missouri Valley is now divided by
subregional conflicts. They have fiared
here in the Senate several times in the
past few days. Irrigationists and the or¬
ganizations they work with and through
are fighting navigationists and the or¬
ganizations they work with and through.
Each thinks its side is right. Under the
combined plan of the Bureau and the en¬
gineers, as the President in his message
has indicated those fights will go on.
Under what circumstances will either
side yield? Is it not the clear duty of
Congress to spend the money of all the
taxpayers for the maximum benefit of
all interests — ^fiood control, irrigation,
power, and navigation, with emphasis on
the first two because they are the most
essential and most pressing?
Is it not the clear duty of Congress to
set up an agency that will arbitrate all
the petty disputes now disuniting the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE December 1
8790
Missouri Basin, without fighting for fa¬
voritism for any one interest?
DEMOCRATIC
Those who oppose M. V. A. say, without
basis, that it would have too much power.
We know from the charter of T. V. A.,
and from the way it operates, that this
is no't true. T, V. A. has no power to
coerce or compel any of the people in
the Tennessee Valley to do anything —
except for its power to condemn land,
which private utilities also have. M. V.
A. would get the same mandate from
Congress that T. V. A. got— to work with
and for and through existing county,
municipal, and State agencies in the val¬
ley to accomplish its work. We know
from the Tennessee region how popular
and how democratic that method is.
. Development of the Missouri region
through an M. V. A. can work miracles in
bettering the lives of the people who live
there, raising their standard of living.
It can do so because the very aim and
object of a valley authority is to make
new opportunities for private enterprise.
With less expensive power it invites in¬
dustry. With less expensive transporta¬
tion it invites industry. It can bring
about new security for owners of
drought-stricken lands, for stockmen
who are dependent on those lands for
auxiliary feed as well as pasturage. It
can bring about new security for own¬
ers of gullied and eroded land; of land
invaded each year by flood; of land that
must be used curatively, with the right
fertilizers and terracing and contour
plowing and the planting of root crops.
It can create cheaper power for the de¬
velopment of mines in Colorado, Wy¬
oming, Montana. It can open up a great
new market, not just for the necessities
of life, but for electrical appliances,
automobiles, luxury items of all kinds.
These things are the essence of de¬
mocracy, because they contribute to the
stability of living standards, to the sta¬
bility of private enterprise. No group
of agencies with their interests divided
by law as well as by tradition, can hope
to bring about similar development of
all the region’s resources for the greatest
good of the greatest number of people.
What the people of the Missouri Val¬
ley do in the coming years in using the
tools of modern up-to-date organization
in developing the natural resources of
their valley will largely determine the
future growth of business, industry, and
agriculture in that entire area.
The people of the valley want modern
methods and modern systems for the
development of their resources and not
those of the ox-cart era. A Missouri
Valley Authority is the only answer to
their prayer, and it is up to us here in
the Congress of the United States to
give it to them,
I cannot conclude my remarks today
without expressing my appreciation of
the splendid work of the Nation’s press in
bringing this issue before the American
people. The press has been uniformly
fair in presenting the issues involved, and
is performing a valuable service to the
entire Nation.
In particular, I call attention to the
high quality of the editorials and special
articles which have appeared in the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch* and the St. Louis
Star-Times dealing with the subject.
These two papers have pioneered in
bringing to the attention of the people
in the Missouri Valley the need of a com¬
prehensive plan for the development of
the Missouri River Basin under a Mis¬
souri Valley authority similar to the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con¬
sent that an article appearing in the last
issue of Colliers’ entitled “One More
River To Boss” be printed in the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Downey in the chair). Is there objec¬
tion?
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
One More River To Boss
(By Kyle Crichton)
The Missouri is the mad elephant of rivers.
Once a year and sometimes oftener it comes
charging out of the mountains of Montana
through the fertile Middle West in a roaring,
insane torrent that overwhelms farms, rail¬
roads, town, and humans. Homeless families
sleep in schoolhouses and churches until
the water subsides and they can return to
look at the ruin of their lives. Some man¬
age to start over again; others surrender in
the face of a disaster that seems to delight
in repeating Itself. The two floods of 1943
did damage estimated at $63,000,000.
Army engineers perform prodigies in a
technical battle they can never win. They
widen channels, build jetties, construct dikes.
But when the Inevitable floods come, the
massive jetties are crushed, the fertile lands
along the riverbanks are denuded to All
the channels with silt and little towns bury
their dead with the silent fatalism of habit.
In the upper reaches of the river. United
States reclamation engineers struggle with
the problem of getting water for irrigation
on arid acres to be used for settlement of
returning servicemen and demobilized indus¬
trial war workers. In Montana and the
Dakotas, water means the life of the country.
But from Sioux City to the mouth of the
Missouri, Army engineers and interested citi¬
zens think of flood control and navigation.
Because of this conflict of Interests between
those who want the water and those who
dread it, the Missouri makes mock of the best
intentions. It just keeps rolling along —
often as a murderous force of nature.
The Missouri is a valley of a half billion
acres, comprising one-sixth of the area of the
United States and taking in a territory the
size of Germany, France, and Italy combined.
It is populated by 11,500,000 people along a
river course of 2,469 miles. It starts at Three
Porks, Mont., northwest of Yellowstone Na¬
tional Park, where three mountain streams,
the Jefferson, the Madison, and the Gallatin,
unite. From there it flows north through the
mountains, then east across the Great Plains
into North Dakota, then south and southeast
until it joins the Mississippi 17 miles north
of St. Louis. Its watershed embraces Wyo¬
ming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Kan¬
sas, and Mlssouri-^one of the largest river
valleys in the world.
It directly serves great cities like St. Louis,
Kansas City, and Omaha. Along its banks
lie three State capitals — Bismarck, Pierre,
and Jefferson City. It taps the copper de¬
posits of Montana and the great Corn Belt of
the Middle West. It floods the lower valley
and starves the upper valley, the Dust Bowls
of the Dakotas. Its tributaries Include the
Milk, Yellowstone, Little Missouri, Platte,
Kansas (Kaw), James (in the Dakotas^ Big
Sioux, Grand (north Missouri), Osage, Re¬
publican, Big Horn, and Gasconade.
SPECTACULAR FAILURES IN FLOOD CONTROL
Its swift tributaries in the mountains of
the north are capable of producing power:
the fertile valleys of the middle and lower
river need only protection from floods to be
among the great producing areas of the
world. It is a great river and a wild river.
Elaborate man-made attempts to tame the
monster have all ended in spectacular fail¬
ure. The efforts of the engineers have been
no more successful than the incantations of
the weathermen. But it required the two
serious floods of 1943 to bring matters to a
head. Plainly, enough was enough, and
something had to be done.
The first savior who came galloping forth
with a plan was Col. Lewis A. Pick, Army en¬
gineer in charge of the Missouri River divi¬
sion at Omaha. In 3 months’ time Pick pro¬
duced a report based on 50 years of surveys In
the Missouri Basin. It called for a system
of 12 dams on the Missouri and its tributaries
and levees from Sioux City to its mouth, at a
total cost of $490,000,000.
The United States Reclamation Bureau now
■perked 'up. For 5 years it had been working
on a survey of the Missouri, and now it had
the survey ready. Perhaps the h'ullabaloo of
the Army engineers stimulated the reclama¬
tion people; anyhow, they submitted a plan to
spend $1,257,654,700 for dams, reservoirs,
power plants, and Irrigation works.
Although the Pick plan was criticized as
being far from adequate even for flood con¬
trol, the real storm of objection came over
an obscure passage in it, discovered by Gov¬
ernors Moses of North Dakota, Ford of Mon¬
tana, and Hunt of Wyoming. This passage
related to a proposal to deepen the naviga¬
tion channel of the Missouri from Sioux City
to its mouth, from the present 6-foot chan¬
nel to a standard depth of 9 feet. It observed,
rather Innocently, that the engineers thought
they would need a specified amount of the
flow of the river for navigation purposes.
The embattled governors found, to their
consternation, that the amount mentioned
was practically all the average flow for each
of the past 10 years. They raised the roof and
promptly presented, in self-defense and re¬
taliation, an amendment sponsored by Sen¬
ator Joseph C. O’Mahoney, of Wyoming,
which would reserve to the upper valley
States control of all waters originating within
their boundaries.
The Bureau of Reclamation maintained
that the amendment merely gave all States
a chaff ce to be heard before a project was
authorized. The Army engineers stated flatly
that under the amendment any project
■R^ould be ineffective if objected to by any
affected State. They Insisted that the
amendment would give the States power of
veto over legislation enacted by Congress
and approved by the President. The amend¬
ment was defeated in committee but will un¬
doubtedly be brought up again.
This really threw the fat in the Are, and
the resulting uproar was deafening. The
Army engineers hastily averred that there
was plenty of water in the Missouri for both
irrigation and navigation. The reclamation-
ists objected that if this were true, 'Why had
the Army been in such a rush to get priority
on water for navigation?
Tire Army engineers declared that if there
were ever a conflict between irrigation and
navigation, they wouldn’t dream of standing
in the way of irrigation. ’The reclamatlon-
Ists said that was fine and would the Army
engineers put it in ■writing? The Army
huffed up at this and asked If their word
couldn’t be trusted. The reclamationlsts
thereupon decided to mistrust them more
than ever.
It was at this juncture that the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch stepped in and said, “Holdl
Enough!” The way this was going it could
only end In civil war and, in the meantime.
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
8791
the Missouri would be playfully washing
away half the Middle West. What the Post-
Dispatch asked was If anybody had ever heard
of the T. V. A. They said forthrightly and
with no quibbling that the Tennessee Valley
Authority was one of the greatest things that
had ever happened In America, and all any¬
body had to do to prove it was to go down
and talk with the people in Tennessee.
Now. therefore, let it be resolved, said the
Post-Dispatch, to stop all this nonsense about
upper river and lower river and talk in
terms of the’Missouri Valley. What we need,
it added, is an M. V. A., and the sooner the
better,
AN INVITATION TO SOUND OFF
It addressed a letter to the editors of the
Missouri Valley asking for their opinions,
criticisms, and cooperation. It put one of
Its crack reporters,. Sam J. Shelton, on the
story and told him to stay there until the
M. V. A. became a reality.
If the Post-Dispatch wanted criticism, it
now received it in showers. The Kansas City
Star said very promptly that it wanted no
part of a project that would irrigate 4,000,000
additional acres to afford competition for
Kansas and Missouri farmers.
The Montana Standard, of Butte, E. G.
Lelpheimer, editor, wrote: “We are praying
for ah end to bureaucratic dictatorship and
regimentation. We want to have ajhand in
our own development. We can hardly im¬
agine a board sitting in perpetuity to control
our economic destiny. We fear that such a
board may be responsive entirely to demands
of the lower States because of their large
populations, powerful in politics, while we
wither and die, neglectEtl. We point out
that "there are substitutes for water naviga¬
tion in the valley but no substitute for water
In the soil.”
The Omaha World-Herald looked with hor¬
ror on the suggestion, referring to it as a
“colossus which would be operated completely
by the bureaucracy.” Governors Hicken-
looper, of Iowa, Sharpe, of South Dakota,
and Vivian, of Colorado also harped on the
dictatorship theme, with Governor Vivian
adding that anything done in the valley
should be handled by private interests.
The Post-Dispatch answered the Kansas
City Star by saying that it was thg short¬
sightedness of sectional interests that had
brought the valley to its present plight. It
said further that the States’ rights people
were talking through their hats. How could
they object to M. V. A. when both the Recla¬
mation Bureau and the Army engineers were
Federal agencies operated out of Washington?
In truth, it continued, the greatest triumph
of T. V. A. has been that it operates entirely
in the Tennessee Valley and with no inter¬
ference from Washington. There is the clos¬
est cooperation between T. V. A. and the
people it serves. When Senator McKellar
sought to have ihe hiring of T. V. A. em¬
ployees brought under the control of Con¬
gress, the outcry from the Tennessee Valley
was so great that the measure was defeated.
Before the Post-Dispatch had proposed the
M. V. A. plan, its Mr. Sam Shelton had pointed
out that there were only four points of seri¬
ous physical conflict between the Pick plan,
sponsored by the Army engineers, and the
Bureau of Reclamation plan, to wit:
1. At Fort Peck Dam and Reservoir in
North Dakota, completed by the Army engi¬
neers in 1939 and now operated for naviga¬
tion, flood control, and power, the Bureau of
Reclamation plan proposed to draw heavily
on the storage capacity of 19,400,000 acre-feet
,of water to irrigate additional arid farming
land. (An acre-foot of water is a unit of
volume which covers a level acre to a depth
of 1 foot.) The Army engineers object to
use of this stored water for Irrigation before
equivalent storage capacity in aid of naviga¬
tion and flood control is made available far¬
ther down the main stem of the Missouri.
2. The Bureau of Reclamation’s proposal
to eliminate the Pick plan’s recommended
Garrison Dam In North Dakota (17,000,000
acre-feet capacity) is objected to by the Army
engineers because this would cause a reduc¬
tion of 10,000,000 acre-feet in flood control
in the main river. The Army engineers as¬
sert the resulting flood protection would be
Inadequate.
3. A proposal of the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion to irrigate 1,000,000 acres in the Souris
Basin in North Dakota, near the Canadian
> border, with water diverted from the Missouri
below Port Peck, is objected to by Army en¬
gineers.
4. The proposed 9-foot channel is a major
point of disagreement with all who seek a
comprehensive plan for over-all development
of the Missouri River Basin.
Both the Army engineers and the Recla¬
mation people have agreed that reconcilia¬
tion of the plans could be worked out in a
practical way, but the prospects of collabora¬
tion seem less promising when Congress is
reached.
In the House the various phases of river-
basin development are handled by three
committees: Flood Control, Rivers and Har¬
bors, and Irrigation and Reclamation. In
the Senate the Commerce Committee han¬
dles both flood control and navigation mat¬
ters, but there is a separate committee on
Irrigation and reclamation. The Bureau of
Reclamation is under the Secretary of the
Interior, and the Army engineers are under
the Secretary of War.
This was confusing enough without the
complication of the O’Mahoney amendment
which enjoyed the sponsorship of 21 other
Senators and flew in the face of the United
States Supreme Court decision in the New
River case in 1940, which gave Congress
widely extended rights over the navigable
streams of the country.
FOLLOWING THE T. V. A. PATTERN
On August 18 of this year the problem
was placed on a new level by Senator James
E. MURRAY, of Montana, who introduced a
bill in the Senate to create a Missouri Val¬
ley Authority. It followed closely the origi¬
nal T. V. A. bill, but offered additions that
had been worked out during the 11-year
life of the Tennessee project. What gave
special tone to Senator Murray’s words, how¬
ever, was the viewpoint from which he sur¬
veyed the problem.
“Mr. President,” he said, “it is clear that
the Job to be done is tremendous. It chal¬
lenges the imagination. It throws down the
gantlet to our engineering skill, our scien¬
tific knowledge, and our know how as to
methods and management. ’• • • It is
a Job for modern pioneering on a grand scale
in the national interest.”
The introduction of the Murray bill has
been followed by a similar measure offered by
Senator Guy M. Gillette, of Iowa. On Sep¬
tember 21, of this year. President Roosevelt
sent a message to Congress advocating M. V,
A. and asking for consideration of other proj¬
ects on the Arkansas and Columbia Rivers.
This has taken the Missouri Valley problem
out of the discussion stage into the realm of
action.
As a post-war plan for providing jobs and
stimulating industry, nothing else comes
even close. What has been done in the Ten¬
nessee Valley will pale before the achieve¬
ments in the Missouri if the project is started
and carried through. The Tennessee is 652
.miles long, the Missouri is 2,469 miles. ’The
area of the Tennessee basin is 41,000 square
miles, the Missouri basin has an area of
629,000 square miles, nearly 13 times as large.
M. V. A. has not. of course, been authorized
and no engineering construction has been
ventured, but one may get an idea of the
magnitude of the possible plan by studying
the suggestion made in the Pick plan and
the larger plan of the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion. The Pick plan proposes 12 new Mis¬
souri Valley flood-control reservoirs, 5 on the
main stem of the river, 5 on tributaries of
the Republican River in Nebraska and Kan¬
sas, and 2 in the Yellowstone basin. These
are in addition to 10 already authorized by
Congress but not constructed because of the
war emergency. Six of those authorized are
in Missouri.
MORE flood-control STORAGE
The 5 new reservoirs proposed for the
main stem of the river in North and South
Dakota would have aggregate storage capac¬
ity of 35,200,000 acre-feet of water. The 2
in the Yellowstone Basin would store 5,750,-
000 acre-feet. These projects, together with
the existing Port Peck (Mont.) Reservoir’s
19,400,000 acre-feet, would provide flood-con¬
trol storage above Sioux City, Iowa, of more
than 60,000,000 acre-feet.
The very regimentation that the objectors
fear may, say the proponents of the plan, be
a means of saving one of our most fruitful
regions. The Tennessee Valley authorities
have worked hand in glove with the farmers.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s plan would
store 35,446,000 acre-feet in the upper main
stream and the upper tributaries. ’This plan,
however, includes many other irrigation res¬
ervoirs, with aggregate capacity of 45,700,000
acre-feet. Even the most prosaic individual
must be stirred by the magnitude of such an
undertaking. The national importance of
M. V. A. Is obvious. In a section where soil
erosion, silted river beds and lowered water
levels have threatened the very life of the
land, the harnessing of the Missouri (known
as the Big Muddy) will be an achievement
of incalculable value.
A picture of what may be the future for
the Missouri Valley may be suggested by what
Benton J. Stong, editor of the National Union
Farmer, has to report on the T. V. A. “I saw
the enormous success of T. V. A. in an alfalfa
patch,” he writes. “When I knew it 9 years
ago. it had been a ‘shotgun cornfleld’ — so
steep that, according to local legend, the
farmer planted it by shooting seed into the
field from the opposite hillside. ’Then it
had been one of those deeply gullied waste¬
lands, thick with underbrush and tiny
streams that carried away the little remain¬
ing soil. But when I saw the field this
month, it was covered with a green blanket
of alfalfa and blue grass, its deep scars wiped
away and replaced with terraces. It was part
of the 55-acre hillside farm of Henry Clark,
which has been restored by T. V. A. phosphat.e
and lime.
“Ten years ago Henry Clark scratched his
hillside with a little black mare and a sled
and got little more than $200 cash income.
Last year he cultivated it with a tractor, a
mowing machine, grain drill and other mod¬
ern equipment and took in $4,600 from hay,
dairy products, tomatoes, tobacco, and poul¬
try. Ten years ago, Henry Clark’s home was
a cabin. Today it is a fine farmhouse with
electricity, electric range, electric washing
machine, refrigerator, and lights.
“T. V. A. is not a power project. It is not an
agricultural project. It is an Integrated de¬
velopment of all the resources of an area,
integrated so that water is harnessed, the
lands are restored, the minerals are devel¬
oped, and men live a better life. It is a pat¬
tern that may be developed all over America.”
The floods in the Missouri have obscured
the even greater losses from lack of water
in the upper valley States. The great Ja¬
lopy exodus from the Great Plains during
the drought decade saw 350,000 persons leave
their homes in the distressed region. The
amounts unpaid on December 31, 1942, on
grants and work relief from the federal gov¬
ernment reached a total of $1,246,557,087.
This approximates the estimated cost of the
Bureau of Reclamation plan. It is estimated
that 150,000 men could be employed, in the
No. 167 - 3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE December 1
8792
Immediate post-war period, on construction
sites under the Bureau of Reclamation proj¬
ect and an even greater number employed in
factories to furnish materials for the dams,
canals, and Jetties.
The Tennessee Valley is now a show win¬
dow for what electrification can do. Every
farm is electrically lighted and possesses
the electric devices that make life more
pleasant and efficient. Here is the contrast¬
ing situation in the Missouri Valley States:
Rural farm dwellings
-
With
electric
light
With
me¬
chani¬
cal re¬
frigera¬
tion
With
running
water
With
in¬
stalled
bath¬
tub or
shower
United States..
Percent
31.3
Percent
14.9
Percen t
17.8
Percent
11.8
Montana
27. 8
12.7
14.7
9.0
Wvnminp-
31. 0
13.2
16. 1
10.3
Colorado .
34.6
14.9
21.3
12.4
North Dakota .
15.5
2.3
6.0
4.7
South Dakota . .
17.9
4.8
11.8
3.2
Nebraska . .
28.5
12.2
22.3
14.0
Kansas _ _
27.3
17.1
15.7
11.5
Iowa... _ _
39.5
16.3
21.5
15.4
Missouri _
15.9
8.5
6.3
4.7
This suggests eloquently the opportunity
for an Improved future in the Missouri Valley
if that future is worked out with determina¬
tion.
Dr. John L. Coulter, former member of the
Federal Tariff Commission, of Washington,
D. C., stated in June of this year before a
Senate committee, that America, with its
population increasing at the rate of a mil¬
lion people a year, will have to Increase its
acreage if we are to maintain present stan¬
dards of living.
“We are at a point now where we are Imi-
portlng more products of agriculture than
we are exporting,” he said.
This being sc, the M. V. A, or some alterna¬
tive plan for bringing more land into cultiva¬
tion in the Missouri Valley becomes a na¬
tional Imperative. A survey made this spring
in North Dakota determined that of some
6,300 young men from that State in the
armed services, more than 5,500 desire to be
farmers after the war. The survey showed
that only 675 now have farms, and therefore,
for that group alone, about 4,850 farms are
needed.
Therefore, we need farms, we need flood
control, we have the men at hand for farm¬
ing. Everybody acknowledges that the prob¬
lem of the Missouri must be tackled, but it
is over M. V. A. that the big slugfest will
come.
There arises the question of who will pay
for M. V. A. Under current proposals, the
financing will come from the Federal Gov¬
ernment, but there would be profits on power
and assessments on benefits to lands and city
properties. The Edison Electric Institute,
representing private power Interests, main¬
tains that the ultimate cost of T. V. A. will
be $1,000,000,000, or five times as much as
estimated for the original program, and is ex¬
pected to pay for itself in 60 years but with¬
out Interest. David E. Lillenthal, director of
the Tennessee Valley Authority, estimates
that T. V. A. will cost $700,000,000 and will be
paid off in 30 years.
In the case of the much larger Missouri Val¬
ley plan, power will be a minor consideration
and could not possibly pay the total cost of
the project. But supporters of the M. V. A.
argue that, in the public Interest, the Mis¬
souri has to be tamed; that the Nation will
receive great benefits from anything that
brings greater productivity to the Missouri
Valley, prevents flood damage and saves land
under cultivation.
Although electric power is only one phase
of M. V. A. (with an estimated 1,000,000 to
3,000,000 kilowatts possible), it is quite pos¬
sible that some defenders of private enter¬
prise will swing their shillelaghs. M. V. A.
is a great challenge, the sort of battle that
stirs the pioneer instincts still in the breasts
of most Americans. Its supporters do not
deny that it will also be a giant stepping on
many toes and that outcries must be ex¬
pected. A great deal will depend on the leg¬
islators guiding the bill through Congress.
There will be no George W. Norris to lead the
fight, as there was in the case of the T. V. A.
Great interests will be lined up on each side,
and mighty blows will be struck.
DISPAElnr BETTWEEN COMMITTEES
The people who feel that it might be wiser
to work out a plan betv;een the Army engi¬
neers and the Bureau of Reclamation have
found that in Congress it has been impos¬
sible to get the separate committees to sit
down together to discuss an over-all solution.
The interests of the two Government agen¬
cies are entirely disparate. Reclamation
people have been taught to think in terms of
land; Army engineers are concerned with
watercourses. M. V. A. advocates belteve it is
impossible that the two could ever work In
harmony.
One big plan is needed, and time will tell
whether it will come through M. V. A. or
another agency of like character.
It’s going to be a tough fight, but the Mis¬
souri has been kicking its region around for
hundreds of years, and it either has to be
stopped soon or it will run out of competi¬
tion. Americans always like a challenge of
that kind.
The M. V. A. is going to be something to
watch and wonder over when it gets going.
PREVENTION OP DOUBLE TAXATION ON
INCOMES
During the course of Mr. Murray’s
speech the following occurred:
Mr. McFarland. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. McFarland. I ask unanimous
consent that the unfinished business be
temporarily laid aside and that the Sen¬
ate proceed to the consideration of House
bill 3592, Calendar No. 1056.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv¬
ing the right to object, I ask that the
Senator from Arizona make a statement
with regard to the nature of the bill.
Mr. McFarland. The bin would
prevent double taxation. Under the
present law some Federal employees who
are working in the District of Columbia,
as well as many who are employed in
some of the States, are being taxed in two
different jurisdictions. The bill would
permit them to be taxed only in the State
of their domicile.
Mr. MAYBANK. Would the bill in
any way change the present system of
collection of income taxes from South
Carolinians who might be residents of
the District of Columbia?
Mr. McFarland, no; it would per¬
mit the collection of taxes from residents
of the State of South Carolina, but would
prohibit them from being taxed by som^
other State or the District of Columbia.
Mr. MAYBANK. In other words, the
bill would not in any way make it pos¬
sible for those who are now domiciled
in the District of Columbia and paying
Income taxes to change their domicile
to some jurisdiction under which they
could pay a lower income tax.
Mr. McFarland. No; they would
have to maintain a genuine domicile in
the State in which they paid the taxes.
Mr. MAYBANK. Would they have to
own any real estate or property within
such State?
Mr. McFarland. I do not think in
any State the ownership of real estat^
or other property is necessary in order
to make a citizen subject to income tax¬
ation.
Mr. MAYBANK. I agree with the
statement of the Senator. Would there
be any limit on the time in which tax¬
payers could change their domicile?
Mr. MCFARLAND. The Senator from
Virginia [Mr. Byrd] has some amend¬
ments which he would like to offer. I
believe the amendments might clarify
the matter. If there is no objection to
proceeding to the consideration of the
bill I believe the Senator from Virginia
will offer his amendments.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I will
withhold any further questions which I
may have until the distinguished Sena¬
tor from Virginia [Mr. Byrd] has offered
his amendments. I understand that
some of our State tax officials have dis¬
cussed. with Virginia State tax officials
the possibility of a number of high-
salaried Government officials, as well as
others, being relieved from the payment
of taxes for this year by the enactment
of some law.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I still
reserve the right to object to proceeding
to the consideration of the bill, but if it
is the pleasure of the Senator from Ari¬
zona to have the Senator from Virginia
explain his amendments, I have no objec¬
tion. However, I reserve the right to
object to consideration of the bill after
the Senator from Virginia shall have
concluded.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill for
which the Senator from Arizona has re¬
quested consideration provides that a
Federal employee may choose his State
of domicile. If the bill should be passed
in its present form it would afford an
opportunity to Federal employees to
choose a State of domicile which did not
require the payment of an income tax,
and therefore would permit an evasion of
the pajment of a tax which such an
employee otherwise would be compelled
to pay. For example, the bill provides
that a Federal employee who has lived
in Virginia for 30 years, and has obtained
all the benefits of schools and other
privileges which the State provides,
could choose a domicile in some other
State and thereby evade the payment of
Virginia income taxes.
If the bill is taken up I propose to offer
an amendment providing that the date
when the provisions of the bill shall be¬
come effective shall be December 31, 1944.
At the present time the bill has no effec¬
tive date. Therefore, should the bill be¬
come law there would be created a con¬
dition of chaos with regard to what part
of the calendar year would be subject to
tax in one State or another.
I pi'opose to offer another amend¬
ment which would provide that in order
that a Federal employee may be re¬
lieved of the payment of a tax in a State
8793
1944 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
which may impose such tax, such em¬
ployee shall be required to furnish a tax
receipt proving that he is domiciled in
another State which assesses an income
tax. If this bill should be taken up, and
the amendments to which I have referred
should not be adopted considerable dis¬
cussion would be provoked in the Senate
before the bill could reach final enact¬
ment. I think the bill in its present
form leaves wide open the door for
wholesale tax evasion.
Mr. McFarland. Mr. President, I
told the Senator from Virginia that I
would offer no objection to his amend¬
ments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Will be read by title for the information
of the Senate.
The Legislative Clerk. A bill (H. R.
3592) to amend the Judicial Code in re¬
spect to the original jurisdiction of the
district courts of the United States in
certain cases, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object, let me say that I
have no personal objection to the pro¬
posed legislation; but there are Senators
on this side of the Chamber who have
an interest in the bill. I refer particu¬
larly to the Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. Danaher]. I do not wish to consent
to the bill being taken up until he has
reached the floor. He is not now present.
If necessary, I shall make the point of
no quorum. I do not want to do that be¬
cause it may result in an unnecessary
waste of time.
Mr. McFarland. Mr. President, I
had understood that the Senator from
Connecticut had no objection to the bill.
The bill has been on the calendar for
some time. I do not wish unduly to de¬
lay the Senator from Montana. I may
as well withdraw my request.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, if the
Senator will wait for 2 or 3 minutes I
believe the Senator from Connecticut
will be present and then he can speak
for himself. I do not know whether he
is hostile to the bill or whether, with the
amendments suggested by the Senator
from Virginia, he would support the bill.
However, there will be a possible oppor¬
tunity of disposing of the bill as soon as
the 'Senator from Connecticut reaches
the floor.
Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McFarland, if I have the floor
I will yield, but I do not wish unduly to
delay the Senator from Montana.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I hope
that before any action is taken on the
bill we will have a quorum call and then
have the amendments agreed to. I can
very well see that many Federal em¬
ployees could take advantage of the pro¬
visions contained in the bill unless the
amendments of the Senator from Vir¬
ginia were agreed to.
Mr. McFarland. Does the Senator
object to taking up the bill at this time?
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McFarland. I yield.
Mr. HILL. T wonder if T might sug¬
gest to the distinguished Senator that
very likely he will expedite the passage
of his bill if he will withdraw it at this
time and then when the Senator from
Connecticut comes in renew his request.
Mr. McFarland. I would rather
have the Record show that there Is ob¬
jection, because I have received volumes
of mail in regard to this bill, which I
thought was noncontroversial with the
amendments of the Senator from Vir¬
ginia adopted. I repeat, I would rather
an objection be shown. I llave no per¬
sonal interest in the proposed legislation
at all, but, if any Senator objects to the
bill, I would rather have the Record
show the objection.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I still
think if the Senator would possess him¬
self in patience for a moment or two, un¬
til the Senator from Connecticut can be
here, the bill might be disposed of; but
I am not going to consent to having the
bill taken up unless and until the Sena¬
tor from Connecticut is present.
Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I
should like to say to the Senator from
Arizona that I deeply appreciate the po¬
sition in which he finds himself in view
of the many requests that the bill be con¬
sidered, because some employees are pay¬
ing income taxes in two States, first
where they work and then where they
live. I have no objection to the bill,
provided flrst the amendments of the
Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrd] are
adopted to the effect that one paying in¬
come tax today in South Carolina or any
other Strata must continue to pay that
State unless he is a citizen of another
State and pays the other State. It is
not fair for individuals of States to pay
and Government employees be allowed to
change their residence to States that
have no tax and avoid payment. Of
course they should not pay in two States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair understands objection has been
made. The Senator from Montana [Mr.
Murray] has the floor.
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS
■ After the conclusion of Mr. Murray’s
remarks the Senate resumed the consid¬
eration of the bill (H. R. 4485) author¬
izing the construction of certain public
works on rivers and harbors for flood
control, and for other purposes.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I send to
the desk a short amendment to the bill
now pending before the Senate, and ask
that it be read at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Legislative Clerk. On page 18,
following-line 19, it is proposed to insert
a new paragraph as follows:
The project for flood control on Farm Creek,
HI., Is hereby authorized substantially In
accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers In his report of No¬
vember 16, 1944, at an estimated cost of
$3,017,900.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I may
say to the Senator from Illinois that I
should be very glad to take the amend¬
ment to conference.
Mr. LUCAS. I am happy at the Sena¬
tor’s graciousness, and I thank him for
his generosity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend¬
ment offered by the Senator from
Illinois.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, it is my
understanding that immediately after
the convening of the new Congress we
will take up the matter of the Missouri
Valley Authority. It is my understand¬
ing further that such an agreement has
been made by all the different agencies
involved, and by the responsible leader¬
ship of both the majority and minority
groups.
I merely wish to say at this time that
the people of my State feel under a keen
sense of obligation not only to the Sen¬
ator from Montana [Mr. Murray] for
having introduced the measure, but also
to the distinguished senior Senator from
Missouri [Mr. Clark], who has been
most cooperative in the passing of the
flood-control bill, as a result of which
approximately a million two hundred
thousand acres in North Dakota will be
irrigated.
At the present time in North Dakota
the total amount of irrigation is, roughly,
21,615 acres, compared with Montana,
which has 1,711,409 acres. We feel that
for the first time the State of North Da¬
kota will, through the passage of the
pending measure, get that to which it is
entitled. However, we feel that we prefer
the enactment of the M. V. A. bill. I
have received many hundred telegrams
from the State of North Dakota, from
both men and women, and from different
organizations, in favor of the M. V. A. I
have placed none of them in the Record
up to this time. It is not my intention
to do so until after we begin the real
consideration of the' M. V. A. bill in the
coming Congress.
Mr. President, I want this body to
know that I believe no one could have
better expressed the real purpose of the
M. V. A. than did the junior Senator
from Montana [Mr. Murray] on August
18, and also in his address on the floor of
the Senate this morning. I endorse every
word he uttered upon each of those occa¬
sions.
In order that this body may know
exactly what the situation of the North¬
west is relative to having light and
power upon the farms, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record at
this point in my remarks pages 6 and
7 of the hearings before the Committee
on Agriculture of the House of Repre¬
sentatives on rural electrification. I may
add that this shows that today North
Dakota is lower than any other State of
the Union in the number of farms having
electricity for light and power. Roughly,
they number 6.9 percent of all the fai-ms
of the State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from North Dakota?
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the Record,
as follows:
8794 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE Decemx>er 1
Comparison of rank, percentage, and number of farms electrified with central-station service, 1935, 1940, and 1943, by States and for
the United States
Area
Farms, Jan.
1, 1935,1
number
Farms receiving central-
station electric service
Dec. 31, 1934
Farms, Apr.
1, 1940,1
number
Farms receiving central-
station electric service
Apr. 1, 1940
Farms receiving central-
station electric service
June 30, 1943 »
Increase in electrified farm
from Dec. *31, 1934, to
June 30, 1943
Number 3
Percent
Rank
Number '
Percent
Rank
Number
Percent
Rank
Number
Percent
Rank
United States .
6, 812, 350
743, 954
10.9
6, 096, 799
1, 853, 249
30.4
2, 454, 100
40.3
1,710,146
229.9
Alabama.. . . .
273, 455
11,053
4.0
33
231, 746
33, 907
14.6
41
66, 200
24.2
39
45, 147
408.5
15
Arizona . .
18, 824
5, 577
29.6
12
18, 468
5, 607
30.4
24
7, 600
■|l. 2
25
2,023
36.3
46
Arkansas _ _ _
253, 013
2,943
1.2
47
216, 674
21, 303
9.8
45
36, 900
16.6
44
32, 957
1,119.8
3
California.. . .
150,360
81, 093
53.9
1
132, 658
107,904
81.3
4
115, 000
86.7
3
33, 907
41.8
45
Colorado .
63, 644
7,145
11.2
25
• 61, 436
14,-823
28.8
25
22,900
44.5
24
15, 755
220. 5
27
Connecticut. . . . . .
32, 157
10, 138
31.5
10
21, 163
16,995
80.3
5
18, 300
86.5
4
8, 162
80.5
39
Delaware .
10, 381
1,791
17.3
20
8,994
3,545
39.4
21
4,900
64.-5
20
3, 109
173.6
29
Florida . .
72, 857
6,700
7.8
26
62,248
15, 476
24.9
28
19, 600
31.5
32
13,900
243.8
23
Georgia .
250, 544
6, 956
2.8
41
216, 033
42, 409
19.6
33
67, 700
31.3
33
60, 744
873. 3
5
Idaho _
45, 113
13, 433
29.8
11
43, 663
26, 439
58.3
13
32, 400
74.2
13
18, 967
141.2
35
Illinois . .
231,312
28, 379
12.3
23
213, 439
80, 027
37.5
22
113, 000
52.9
21
84, 621
29S. 2
17
Indiana .
200, 835
23, 476
11.7
24
184, 549
91, 127
49.4
17
125, 600
68.0
14
102,124
435.0
14
Iowa . . .
221,986
32, 047
14.4
22
. 213, 318
73, 308
34.4
23
108, 100
60.7
22
76, 053
237.3
24
Kansas _ _
174, 589
13, 224
7.6
28
156, 327
27, 960
17.9
37
39, 100
2.6.0
36
25,876
195.7
28
Kentucky . . .
278, 298
8,480
3.0
39
252, 894
38,607
15.3
40
67,900
22.9
41
49, 420
582.8
10
Louisiana. . . . .
170,216
2,826
1.7
46
150, 007
16,058
10.7
44
24,200
16.1
45
21,374
756. 3
9
Maine . . .
41, 907
13, 959
33.3
8
38,980
20, 221
51.9
15
24,200
62.1
17
10, 241
73.4
41
Maryland .
44, 501
6,791
16.3
21
42, 175
17,170
40.7
20
24,500
58.1
18
17,709
260.8
21
Massachusetts . .
35, 094
14,494
41.3
7
31, 897
26, 220
82.2
2
26,900
84.3
5
12, 406
85.6
37
Michigan _ _ _ _
196, 517
42, 152
21.4
17
187, 589
131,126
69.9
7
151,000
80.5
7
108,848
258.2
22
Minnesota . . . . .
203, 302
13, 783
6.8
30
197, 351
50, 075
25.4
26
76,800
38.9
26
. 63,017
457.2
12
Mississippi . . .
311, 683
2,802
.9
48
291, 092
26, 078
9.0
46
44, 300
15.2
46
41, 498
1,481.0
1
Missouri _ _ _
278, 4.54
17, 893
6.4
31
256,100
39,204
15.3
39
59', 800
23.4
40
41,907
234.2
25
Montana _
50,564
2,768
5.5
32
41, 823
7,947
19.0
34
10,300
24.6-
37
7,632
272.1
19
Nebraska . . . .
133, 616
9,544
7.1
29
121,062
22,832
18.9
35'
31,300
25.8
35
21,756
228.0
26
3,696
946
25.6
15
3,673
1, 65^
43. 5
19
1,700
47.6
23
754
79. 7
40
New Hampshire _
17, 695
9,495
53.7
2
16,654
lO; 845
65.6
10
13,600
82.2
6
4,105
43.2
44
New Jersey. . . . .
29, 375
15,162
51.6
4
25, 835
21,298
82.4
1
22,500
87.1
2
7,338
48.4
43
New Mexico _
41, 369
1,350
3.3
37
34, 105
4,479
13.1
42
6,400
18.8
42
5,050
374.1
16
New York _
177, 025
57, 825
32.7
9
153,238
102,283
66.7
9
114,900
75.0
11
57, 075
98.7
36
North Carolina... . . .
300,967
9, 672
3.2
38
278, 276
67, 627
24.3
29
94, 100
33.8
29
84, 428
872.9
6
North Dakota... .
84,606
1,968
2.3
43
73,962
3,218
4.4
48
5, 100
6.9
48
3,132
159.1
32
Ohio . . . .
255, 146
48, 048
18.8
19
233, 783
137,680
58.9
11
174,000
74.4
12
- 125, 952
262.1
20
Oklahoma . . . .
213, 325
5,648
2.6
42
179, 687
20, 149
11.2
43
81,000
17.2
43
25,352
448.9
13
Oregon . . .
64, 826
17, 839
27.6
14
61,829
36,369
58.8
12
46,500
75.2
10
28,661
160.7
31
Pennsylvania _
191,284
45, 182
23.6
16
169, 027
94, 081
65.7
14
109, 800
65.0
15
64, 618
143.0
33
Rhode Island _ _ _
4,327
1, 975
45.6
6
3,014
2,457
81.5
3
2,800
92.9
1
825
41.8
45
South Carolina . . .
165, 504
3,796
2.3
44
137, 558
27,568
20.0
32
49, 100
35.7
27
4,5,304
1, 193. 5
2
South Dakota . . .
83,303
2,939
3.5
36
72, 454
3, 981
6,6
47
7, 100
9.8
47
4,161
141.6
34
Tennessee . . .
273, 783
9,727
3.6
34
247, 617
38,884
15.7
38
60,000
24.5
38
50,873
523.0
H
Texas _ _
501, 017
11,466
2.3
45
418, 002
79, 127
18.9
36
117, 900
28.2
34
106, 434
928.2
4
Utah .
30,695
16,130
52.5
3
25, 411
17, 411
68.6
8
19,300
76.0
9
3,170
19.6
47
Vermont . . . .
27,061
7,945
29.4
13
23,582
12, 213
61.8
16
14, 700
62.3
16
6,755
85.0
38
Virginia _
197, 632
14,954
7.6
27
174, 885
42, 144
■* 24. 1
30
56, 100
32. 1
31
41, 146
275.2
18
■Washington . . .
84, 381
40,060
47.6
5
81,686
58,283
71.4
6
65,400
80. 1
8
25, 340
63.2
42
V'est Virginia . . . .
104, 747
3,647
3.5
35
99, 282
25,199
25.4
27
32,200
32.4
30
28,553
782.9
8
Wisconsin........ _ _ _ _
199, 877
39,206
19.6
18
186, 735
87, 556
46.9
18
106,700
57.1
19
67, 494
172.2
30
Wyoming. . . .
17, 487
527
3.0
40
15, 018
3,474
23. 1
31
5,100
34.0
28
4,673
867.7
7
1 TT. S. Census Bureau.
• Eural Electrification Administration survey, 1943.
• Edison Electric Institute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is still open to amendment. If there be
no further amendment, the question is
on the engrossment of the amendments
and the third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time, and
Ea§S£d,
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
move that the Sehate insist upon its
amendments, request a conference with
the House thereon, and that the Chair
appoint the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Ofidcer appointed Mr. Overton,
Mr. Bailey, Mrs. Caraway, Mr. Clark of
Missouri, Mr. Bilbo, Mr. Johnson of Cali¬
fornia, Mr. Brewster, and Mr. Burton
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. I ask unanimous
consent that the clerks be authorized to
renumber the sections of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate proceed to the con¬
sideration of House bill 3961, the river
and harbor bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The Chief Clerk. A bill (H. R. 3961)
authorizing the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors, and for other pur¬
poses. reported with amendments.
Mr. AIKEN. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab¬
sence of a quorum having been suggested,
the clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll, and
the followihg Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Ellender
Maybank
Austin
Ferguson
Mead
Bailey
George
Mllllkin
Ball
Gerry
Murray
Bankhead
GUlette
Nye
Bilbo
Green
O’Daniel
Brooks
Gurney
O’Mahoney
Buck '
Hall
Overton
Burton
Hatch
RadcliSe
Bushfleld
Hawkes
Reed
Butler
Hayden
Revercomb
Byrd
Hill
Reynolds
Capper
Hdlman
Robertson
Caraway
Jenner
Russell
Chandler
Johnson, Colo.
Shlp.stead
Clark, Mo.
La Foliette
Stewart
Connally
hanger
Taft
Cordon
Lucas
Thomas, Okla.
Danaher
McClellan
Tunnell
Davis
McFarland
Vandenberg
Downey
McKellar
Wagner
Eastland
Maloney
Wallgren
Walsh, Mass. Wherry Willis
Walsh, N. J. White
Wheeler Wiley
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven¬
ty-three Senators have answered to their
names. A quorum is present.
The question is on agreeing to the mo¬
tion of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
Overton] that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of House bUl 3961.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill
(H. R. 3961) authorizing the construc¬
tion, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and
for other purposes, which had been re¬
ported from the Committee on Commerce
with amendments.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I feel
very much encouraged in proceeding to
the consideration of the river and har¬
bor bill after the final passage through
the Senate of the flood-control bill.
That bill presented a number of con¬
troversial provisions. Every opportunity
was given in the hearings, and also on
the floor of the Senate, to discuss the
problems which were germane to the bill,
and I am very happy that those prob¬
lems have been satisfactorily resolved
and that the bill has now passed the
Senate.
I
78th CONGKESS
2d Session
H. R. 4485
m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 4 (legislative day, November 21), 1944
Ordered to be printed with the amendments of the Senate numbered
AN
Authorizing the consti-iiction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes.
2 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 im is the piirpose of this Act to establish a definite policy of
4 making use of existing Federal agencies for the construction,
5 operation, and maintenance of all public improvements pro-
0 vided for in this Act in connection with navigation, flood
7 control, and allied activities; to insure coordinated operation
8 of all Federal projects therein for the improvement of navi-
9 gation and alleviation of flood conditions; to provide for
10 realization of other benefits to be derived from such projects;
11 to facilitate preparations and planning for post-war construe-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
tion by the Federal Government in the interest of employ¬
ment; and to secure efficient executive management under the
direction and supervision of the permanent executive agencies
already established by Act of Congress.
In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the rivers of the Nation through the construction of works
of improvement, for navigation or flood control, as herein
authorized, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Con¬
gress to recognize the interests and rights of the States in
determining the development of the watersheds within their
borders and likewise their interests and rights in water utili¬
zation and control, as herein authorized to preserve and
protect to the fullest possible extent established and potential
uses, for all purposes, of the ivaters of the Nation’s rivers;
to facilitate the consideration of projects on a basis of compre¬
hensive and coordinated developjnent; and to limit the author¬
ization and construction of navigation works to those in which
a substantial benefit to ndvigatidn will be realized therefrom
and which can be operated consistently ivith appropriate and
economic use of the waters of such rivers by other users.
In conformity with this policy:
(a) Plans, proposals, or reports of the Chief of Engi¬
neers, War Department, for any works of improvement for
navigation or flood control not heretofore or herein author¬
ized, shall be submitted to the Congress only upon compliance
3
1 with the provisions of this paragraph (a). Investigations
2 which form the basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports
3 shall he conducted in such a manner as to give to the affected
4 State or States, during the course of the investigations, m-
5 formation developed by the investigations and also oppor-
6 tunity for considtation regarding plans and proposals, and,
I to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers,
8 opportunity to cooperate in the mvestigations. If such
9 investigations in whole or part are concerned with the use
10 or control of waters arising west of the ninety-seventh merid-
11 ian, the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Secretary of
12 the Interior, during the course of the investigations, informa-
18 tion developed by the investigations and also opportunity for
14 consultation regarding plans and proposals, and, to the extent
15 deemed practicable by the Chief of E7igineers, opportunity
16 to cooperate in the investigations. The relations of the
1"^ Chief of Engineers with any State under this paragraph (a)
18 shall be with the Governor of the State or such official or
19 agency of the State as the Governor may designate. The
20 term ^^ajfected State or States'’ shall include those in ivhich
21 the works or any part thereof are proposed to be located;
22 those which in whole or part are both within the drainage
23 basin involved aiid situated in a State lying wholly or in
24 part west of the ninety-eighth meridian; and such of those
25 which are east of the ninety-eighth mexidian as, in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
judgment of the Chief of Engineers, will he substantially
affected. Such plans, proposals, or reports and related in¬
vestigations shall he made to the end, among other things,
of facilitating the coordination of plans for the construction
and operation of the proposed ivorks with other plans involv¬
ing the waters which would he used or controlled hy such
proposed ivorks. Each report submitting any such plans
or proposals to the Congress shall set out therein, among
other things, the relationship between the plans for con¬
struction and operation of the proposed works and the plans,
if any, submitted by the affected States and by the Secretary
of the Interior. The Chief of Engineers shall transmit a
copy of his proposed report to each affected State, and, in
case the plans or proposals covered by the report are con¬
cerned with the use or control of waters which rise in whole
or in part west of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secre¬
tary of the Interior. Within ninety days from the date of
receipt of said proposed report, the written views and recom¬
mendations of each affected State and of the Secretary of the
Interior may be submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The
Secretary of W ar shall transmit to the Congress, with such
comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate,
the proposed report together with the submitted views and
recommendations of affected States and of the Secretary
of the Interior. The Secretary of War may prepare and
1
make said transmittal any time following said ninety-day
2 period. The letter of transmittal and its attachments shall be
3 printed as a House or Senate document.
4 (b) The use for navigation, in connection with
5 the operation arid maintenance of such works herein
6 authorized for construction, of waters arising in States lying
7 ' wholly or partly ivest of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be
8 only such use as does not conflict with any beneficial con-
9 sumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or
10 partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters for
11 domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining, or
12 industrial purposes.
12 (c) The Secretary of the Interior, in making investi-
*
14 gations of and reports on works for irrigation and purposes
15 incidental thereto shall, in relation to an affected State or
16 States (as defined m paragraph (a) of this section), and to
17 the Secretary of War, be subject to the same provisions
18 regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports as
19 prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section for the Chief of
20 Engineers and the Secretary of War. In the event a suh-
21 mission of views and recommendations, made by an affected
22 State or by the Secretary of W ar pursuant to said provisions,
23 sets f-orth objections to the plans or proposals covered by the
21 report of the Secretary of the Interior, the proposed works
25 shall not be deemed authorized except upon approval by an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Act of Congress; and subsection 9 ( a) of the Beclamation
Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) and subsection 3 (a)
of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418), as amended,
are hereby amended accordingly.
^2)Sec. 2. That the words “flood control” as used in sec¬
tion 1 of the Act of June 22, 1936, shall be construed to in¬
clude channel and major drainage improvements, and that
hereafter Federal investigations' and improvements of rivers
and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes
shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by
the War Department under the direction of the Secretary of
War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Federal
investigations of watersheds and measures for run-off and
waterflow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on water¬
sheds shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted
by the Department of Agriculture under the direction of the
Secretary of Agriculture, except as otherwise provided by
Act of Congress.
Sec. (3)S 3. That section 3 of the Act approved June
22, 1936 (Public, Numbered 738, Seventy-fourth Congress) ,
as amended by section 2 of the Act approved June 28, 1938
(Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress) , shall apply
to all works authorized in this Act, except that for any chan¬
nel improvement or channel rectification project provisions
(a) , (b) , and (c) of section 3 of said Act of June 22, 1936,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
shall apply thereto, and except as otherwise provided by
law: Provided, That the authorization for any flood-control
project herein adopted requiring local cooperation shall expire
five vears from the date on which local interests are notified
in writing by the War Department of the requirements of
local cooperation, unless said interests shall within said time
furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that
the required cooperation will be furnished.
Sec. (4)^ 4. The Chief of Engineers, under the super¬
vision of the Secretary of War, is authorized to construct,
maintain, and operate (bypubUc park and recreational facili¬
ties in reservoir areas under the control of the War Depart¬
ment, and to permit the construction, maintenance, and
operation of such facilities. The Secretary of War is author¬
ized to grant leases of lands, (6)strueturesT including struc¬
ture or facilities (l)thereon, in reservoir areas for such
periods and upon such terms as he may deem reasonable:
Provided, licenseH to E-ederaly Statey or leeal gev-
crnmcntal ag-eneies for the uoe of areas suitable for puhlie
park and recreational purposes may be granted without
monetary consideration when the Secretary of War deter¬
mines sueh action to he in the puhlie interestT That prefer¬
ence shall he given to Federal, State, or local governmental
agencies, and licenses may he granted without monetary
consider atio7i, to such agencies for the use of areas suitable
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
I?'
for 'public park and recreational purposes, iclien the Secre¬
tary of War determines such action to he in the piddic
interest. The water areas of all such reservoirs shall he
open to public use generally without charge for boating,
swimming, bathing, fishing, and other recreational pur¬
poses, and ready access to and exit from such water areas
along the shores of such reservoirs shcdl be maintained for
general public use, ivhen such use is determined by the Secre¬
tary of War not to be contrary to the public interest, all under
such rules and regulations as the Secretary of War may deem
necessary. No use of any area, to irhicJi this section applies
shall be permitted, which is inconsistent with, the laws for the
protection of fish and game of the State, in irhich such area
is situated.
(^'ySEC. 5. Electric power and energy generated, at reser¬
voir projects under the control of the War Department and
in the opinion of the Secretary of War not re(pu,ired in the
operation, of such projects shall be delivered, to the Secretary
of the Interior, who shall transmit and dispose of such power
and energy in such manner as to enconrage the most wide¬
spread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumer's
consistent with sound business principles, the rate schedules
to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the
Federal Power Commission. Preference in the. sede of such
power and energy shall be given to public bodies and
1
2
3
4
o
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9
cooperatives. The Secretary of the Interior is author¬
ized to construct and acquire only such transmission lines
and related facilities as may he necessary in order to make
the power and energy generated at said projects available in
wholesale quantities for sale on fair and reasonable terms
and conditions to facilities owned by the Federal Govern¬
ment, public bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned
companies.
Sec. 6. That the Secretary of War is author¬
ized to (ll)seh: to make contracts with States, municipali¬
ties, private concerns, or individuals, at such prices and on
such terms as he may deem reasonable, for domestic and
industrial uses sm’plus water that may be available at any
reservoir under the control of the War Department
(12) Provided, That no contracts for such water shall
adversely affect then existing lawful uses of such water. All
moneys received from such (13)sales contracts shall be. de-
%
posited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts.
Sec.- (14^ 7. Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of War to prescribe regulations for the use of
storage (15)availablc allocated for flood control or naviga¬
tion at all reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with
Federal funds provided ou the basis of such purposes, and
H. R. 4485 - 2
10
1 the operation of any such project shall be in accordance
2 with such regulations (16); Provided, That this section shall
3 not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority, except that in
4 case of danger from floods on the Lower Ohio and Missis-
5 sippi Rivers the Tennessee Valley Authority is directed to
6 regulate the release of water from the Tennessee Fiver into
7 the Ohio River in accordance with such instructions as may
8 he issued by the War Depaidment.
9 (ITjBEOr Or H-ereaftei--, whenever m the opinion of
10 taay of War and the Chief of -Engineers any dam and
11 prejeet operated under the direetien of the Secretary of
12 War ean he consistently used for rcclamatien ef arid kndsj
13 it shall he the duty ef the Secretary ef the -Interier te pre-
14 scribe regulations under
lojxz T/AT*
liX vv XL/X l/IXv/ TXot?
15 ef the sterage available fer such pui^pose, and the operatien
16 ef any such project shall he in accer dance with such regula-
17 _ tions.- Such rates, as the Secretary ef the Interier may deem
18 rcasenablcj shall he charged fer the use ef said storage ; the
19 ffleneys received te he deposited into the treasury te the
20 credit ef nnscellaneeus receipts^ Provided^ That this section
21 shall net apply te any dain er reserveir heretofore
22 which supplements any existing leeahy operated irrige
24 Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary of War
25 determines, upon recommendation by the Secretary of the
1 Interior that any dam and reservoir project operated under
2 the direction of the Secretary of War may he utilized for
3 irrigation purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
4 to construct, operate, and maintain, under the provisions of
5 the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32
6 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary
7 thereto), such additional works in connection therewith as he
8 may deem necessary for irrigation purposes. Such irrigation
9 works may he undertaken only after a report and findings
10 thereon have been made by the Secretary of the Interior
11 as provided in said Federal reclamation laws and after suh-
12 sequent specific authorization of the Congress hy an authori-
13 zation Act; and, within the limits of the water users’ repay-
14 ment ability such report may he predicated on the allocation
15 to irrigation of an appropriate portion of the cost of struc-
16 tures and facilities used for irrigation and other purposes.
17 Dams and reservoirs operated under the direction of the
13 Secretary of War may he utilized hereafter for irrigation
19 purposes only in conformity with the provisions of this
20 section, hut the foregoing requirement shall not prejudice law-
21 ful uses now existing: Provided, That this section shall not
22 apply to any da7n or reservoir heretofore constructed in
23 whole or m part by the Army engineers, ivhich provides
i
conservation storage of boater for 'irrigation purposes.
25 (18) Sec. 9. (a) The general comprehensive plans set
12
1 forth in House Document 475 and Senate Document 191,
2 Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, as revised and co-
3 ordinated’hy Senate Document 247, Seventy-eighth Congress,
4 second session, are hereby approved and the initial stages
5 recommended are hereby authorized and shall be prosecuted
6 by the War Department and the Department of the Interior
7 as speedily as may be consistent with budgetary require-
8 ments.
9 (b) The general comprehensive plan for flood control
10 and other purposes in the Missouri River Basin approved
11 by the Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by subsequent Acts,
12 is hereby expanded to include the works referred to in para-
12 graph (a) to be undertaken by the War Department; and
14 said expanded plan shall be prosecuted under the direction
15 of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of
16 Engineers.
17 (c) Subject to the basin-wide findings and recom-
18 mendations regarding the benefits, the allocations of costs and
19 the repayments by water users, made in said House and
20 Senate documents, the reclamation and power developments
21 to be undertaken by the Secretary of the Interior under said
22 plans shall be governed by the Federal Reclamation Laws
23 f Act of J une 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory
%
24 thereof or supplementary thereto), except that irrigation of
13
1 Indian trust and tribal lands, and repayment therefor, shall
2 he in accordance with the laws relating to Indian lands.
3 (d) In addition to previous authorizations there is
4 hereby authorized to he appropriated the sum of $200,-
5 000,000 for the partial accomplishment of the works to be
6 undertaken under said expanded plans by the Corps of
7 Engineers.
8 (e) The sum of $200,000,000 is hereby authorized to
9 be appropriated for the partial accomplishment of the works
10 to be undertaken under said plans by the Secretary of the
11 Interior.
12 Sec. Cl 9)7^ 10. That the following works of improvement
13 for the benefit of navigation and the control of destructive
14 flood waters and other purposes are hereby adopted and au-
15 thorized in the interest of the national security and with a
16 view toward providing an adequate reservoir of useful and
17 worthy public works for the post-war construction program, to
18 be prosescuted under the direction of the Secretary of War and
19 supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the
20 plans in the respective reports hereinafter designated and
21 subject to the conditions set forth therein: Provided, That
22' the necessary plans, specifications, and preliminary work
23 may be prosecuted during the war, with funds from appro-
24 priations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control, so
14
1 as to be ready for rapid inauguration of a post-war program
2 of construction: Provided further, That when the existing
3 critical situation with respect to materials, equipment, and
• 4 manpower no longer exists, and in any event not later than
5 immediately following the cessation of hostilities in the
6 present war, the projects herein shall be initiated as expe-
7 ditiously and prosecuted as vigorously as may be consistent
8 with budgetary requirements: And provided further, That
9 penstocks and other similar facilities adapted to possible
10 future use in the development of hydi’oelectric power shall
11 be installed in any dam herein authorized wlien approved
12 by the Secretary of War on the recommendation of the
13 Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission.
14 ^20yLAKE Champlain Basin
15 Modifications of the existing Waterbury, Wrightsville,
16 and East Barre Dams in the Winooski River Basin, Ver-
17 mont, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
18 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
19 Document Numbered 629, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
20 session, at an estimated cost of $2,120,000.
21 (21'yBLACKSTONE BlVER BaSIN
22 (22'yThe project for the West Hill Reservoir on the West
23 River, Massachusetts, for flood control and other purposes in
24 the Blackstone River Basin is hereby authorized substantially
25 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
neers in House Document Numbered 624, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $1,070,000.
(23'}The project on Blackstone River for local flood protec¬
tion at Worcester, Massachusetts, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document Numbered 624, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$2,232,000.
(24)r/?e project on Blackstone River for local flood protec-
tion at Woonsocket, Rhode Island, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 624,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $803,000.
C25^The project on Seekonk River, for local flood protection
at Pawtucket, Rhode Island, is hereby authorized substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document Numbered 624, Seventy-
eighth Congress, seco^M session, at an estimated cost of
$82,000.
Connecticut Eiyer Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $30,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
16
1 August 18, 1941, for the Connecticut Eiver Basin; Provided,
2 (26)That neither this authorization nor previous authorizn.-
3 tions shall he eonstrued to authorize the construction of a
4 high 4am at the Williamsville site Nothing in this Act or in
5 any previous authorization shall be construed to authorize the
6 construction of a dam, other than a flood control type dam,
7 on the main stream of the West River in the towns of Dum-
8 merston or Newfane in the State of Vermont: Provided,
9 further. That the Army Engineers are authorized and di-
10 rected to construct eight reservoirs in the West River Basin
11 in Vermont instead of the flood control reservoir authorized
12 by existing law, known as the Williamsville reservoir in the
13 above mentioned towns, in accordance with an alternative
14 plan submitted by the Vermont State Water Conservation
15 Board as the same may be modified by agreement betiveen the
16 said Board and the Secretary of War and the Chief of En-
17 gineers, provided the total costs of the alternate plan shall not
18 exceed the sum of $11,000,000 and the amount of flood
19 control secured by them at the entrance of the waters of the
20 West River into the Connecticut River shall not be less than
21 seventy-five per centum of the flood control which may be
22 secured from the single so-called Williamsville reservoir now
23 authorized to be constructed by the Army Engineers. Plans,
24 proposals, or reports heretofore authorized for construction
' 25 at Cambridgeport, Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysville,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
17
in the Connecticut River Basin, or any modification here¬
after 7nade of the comprehensive plan for the Co7mecticut
River Basin in Ve7nnont under authority of the Flood Con¬
trol Act approved June 28, 1938, or of sectio7i 3 of the
Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, shall not be
carried out until after compliance with the provisions of
paragraph (a) of section 1 of this Act: Provided fiulher.
That neither this authorization 7ior any previous autho7'iza-
tion shall be construed to authorize the co7istruction of a da7n
or rese7woir at the Sugar Hill site on the Ammonoosuc River.
Tiiames Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for the Thames Kiver Basin at an
estimated cost of $7,200,000.
Hotjsatonic Bivee Basin
The project for the Thomaston Reservoir on the Nauga¬
tuck River, for flood control in the Housatonic River
Basin, Connecticut, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 338, Seventy-
seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
$5,151,000 (27), when approved pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph (a) of section 1 of this Act.
H. R. 4485 - 3
1 Susquehanna Eivee Basin
2 The project authorized hy the Act of June 22, 1936,
3 to provide for local protection works on the Susquehanna
4 Elver at Ilarrishui’g, Pennsylvania, is hereby modified sub-
5 stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
G Chief of Engineers in House Document Humhered 702,
7 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
8 cost of $2,227,000.
9 The project for flood protection at Tyrone, Pennsyl-
10 vania, on the Little Juniata Elver, Pennsylvania, is hereby
11 authorized substantially in accdrdance with the recommenda-
12 tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Hum-
13 bered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an
14 estimated cost of $1,392,000.
15 The plan for flood control in southern Hew York and
I
16 eastern Pennsylvania authorized hy the Act of June 22,
17 1936, as modified hy the Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby
18 further modified to include the South Plymouth and Gene-
19 gantslet Eeservoirs on tributaries of the Chenango Eiver
20 substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
21 Chief of Engineers in House Document Humhered 702,
- 22 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
23 additional cost of $4,755,000.
24 (28)The plan for the Eaystewn Eescrveir en the Eaystovui
25 Branch ef the Juniata Eiverj Pennsylvania, fer flood een-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L9
r\-%* -TMT ci^Tl-^Q'fnTi'^iA^nT'^ IXX
Ti\!7i cl 11 lx \J l'llv?i^ IX 111 U U k? cl 1/ Q Iclll lltX 11 y 1 1 1
flip vppnmmPTirlntinTi" ^ Phipf
t’llX/ 1 U.vJ' vUlllllv-'llvlclLlVyllo \X1 111 vl vXim^l \X 1 X Jll^^ j
^eeumeal yiimbcfed 702, Seventy-seventh
eft4 sessienj is ax^proved, an4 thefe is hereby anthorized te
be apx>ropFiated the snm ef $2,000^000 for the nhtiatien
and nartial aeeomnhshment thereof.
(2dyRoANOKE River Basin
The general plan for the co7nprehensive development
of the Roanoke River Basin for flood control and other pur¬
poses recommended hy the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 650, Seventy-eighth ^Congress, second
session, is approved and the construction of the Buggs Island
Reservoir on the Roanoke River in Virginia and North
Carolina, and the Philpott Reservoir on the Smith River in
Virginia, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in that
report at an estimated cost of $36,140,000.
(^^QiyY adkin-Pee Dee River Basin
The general plan for the comprehensive development of
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin for flood control and other
purposes recommended by the Chief of Engineers in House
Document 652, Seventy-eiglith Congress, second session, is
hereby stricken from the bill and is referred to the Committee
on Commerce to the end that hearings may be had from the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
people concerned and with instructions to report hack to the
Senate within six months.
(3 1)^7) jsro Biver Basin
The project for local flood control on Edisto Biver, South
Carolina, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate
Document Numbered 182, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $139,000.
(32)*8 AVANNAH Biver Basin
The general plan for the comprehensive development of
the Savannah Biver Basin for flood control and other pur¬
poses recommended by the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 657, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
is approved and the construction of the Clark Hill Beservoir
on the Savannah Biver in South Carolina and Georgia, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in that report at an
estimated cost of $35,300,000. '
Mobile Rivee Basin — Alabama-Coosa Rivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the AUatoona Reservoir on the
Etowah River, .Georgia, approved in the Act of August 18,
1941, at an estimated cost of $14,400,000.
Lowee Mississippi Rivee
The project for flood control and improvement of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
Lower Mississippi Liver adopted by the Act of May 15,
1928, as amended by subsequent Acts of Congress, is
hereby modified in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 509,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, and, as modified,
is hereby adopted and there is hereby authorized to be
«
appropriated, in addition to the sums previously authorized,
$200,000,000 for the accomphshment of the purposes set
forth in said document.
(SS'yParagraph (d) of the Lower Mississippi River item in
section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, is
amended to read as follows:
“The Chief of Engineers, with the approval of the Sec¬
retary of War, shall reimburse local authorities for actual
expenditures found by the Chief of Engineers to reflect the
actual cash value, regardless of State or local assessment
valuations, for providing, at the request of the United States,
lands, rights-of-way, and flowage easements required for
the setbacks of main-line Mississippi River levees: Provided,
That such lands, rights-of-way , and flowage easements may
be provided by local authorities in accordance with local
legal procedure or custom : Provided further. That this para¬
graph shall apply to all such lands, rights-of-way, and flow-
age easements that have been required by the United States
for such setback levees since August 18, 1941, regardless
22
1 of any reimbursement that may have been agreed uyon or
2 made since August 18, 1941.”
3 The project for flood control on the Boeuf and Tensas
4 Rivers and Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana, is hereby
5 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
6 tions of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Niun-
7 bered 151, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
8 estimated cost of $5,013,000. •
9 The project for flood control on the Big Sunflower, Little
10 Sunflower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver Rivers and their trihu¬
ll taries, and on Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal, Bogue Phalia,
12 Ditchlow Bayou, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou, Mississippi,
13 is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
,14 recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu-
15 ment Numbered 516, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
16 session, at an estimated cost of $3,752,000.
17 The project for flood protection in the backwater area
18 of the Yazoo River authorized in the Flood Control Act of
19 August 18, 1941, is hereby amended to authorize the Chief
20 of Engineers, in his discretion, to include improvements for
21 the protection of the Satartia area at an estimated additional
22 cost of $1,061,000 or, in his discretion, to include improve-
23 ments for the protection of the Satartia area plus its extension
24 'at an estimated additional cost of $1,952,000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
EED-OuAcniTA Eiveb Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act of
August 18, 1941, for the Little Missouri Eiver in Arkansas,
at an estimated cost of $3,800,000.
(34)T'/ie project on Bed River in the vicinity of Shreveport,
Louisiana, for flood control and bank protection is hereby
authorized, substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 627, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $3,000,000, except that, in view of the
large expenditure already made by local interests, they shall
not be required to contribute to the construction cost.
(35^The project for the Blakely Mountain Dam on the
Ouachita River, for flood control and other purposes in the
Ouachita River Basin, Arkansas, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 647,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cod
of $11,080,000. ^
Akkansas Ei\"ee Basin - ' .
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $35,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/
24
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the Arkansas Eiver Basin.
The projects for local flood protection on the Arkansas
Biver are hereby modified and authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 447, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated additional-
cost of $10,299,400.
The project on tributaries of the Fountaine Que Bouille
Eiver for flood protection at Colorado Springs, Colorado, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 186, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated cost of $500,000.
The project on Purgatoire Biver for local flood protection
at Trinidad, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 387, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $909,000
(36) ; Provided, That the project may he modified to include
storage in reservoirs upstream from Trinidad if the Secretary
of War and the Chief of Engineers find such action advisable
for flood control and in order to make more water readily
available for agricultural and mdustrial uses without im¬
pairment of flood control for Trinidad.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
White Rivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $45,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
August 18, 1941, for the White River Basin.
Uppee Mississippi Rpvee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Upper Mississippi River
Basin (37), including the project for the Bed Rock Dam on the
Des Moines River for flood control and other purposes, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 651,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $15,000,000 : Provided, That the elevation of the crest
of the spillway of the dam shall not exceed seven hundred
and eighty feet above mean sea level.
The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936,
for local flood protection on the Mississippi River at the
Sainte Genevieve Levee District Numbered 1, Missouri, is
hereby modified substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
H. R. 4485 - 4
26
1 Numbered 727, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
2 at an estimated cost of $141,000.
3 (38)m project on the Des Moines Ewer for local flood pro-
4 tection at Des Moines, Iowa, is hereby authorized substan-
5 tially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
6 of Engineers in House Document Numbered 651, Seventy-
7 eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
8 $270,000.
9 The project on the Mississippi Eiver for local flood pro-
10 tection at Sabula, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially
11 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
12 Engineers in House Document Numbered 328, Seventy-
13 seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
14 $25,000.
15 The project on the Galena River, for local flood protec-
16 tion at Galena, Illinois, is hereby authorized substantially in
17 accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi-
18 neers in House Document Numbered 336, Seventy-seventh
19 Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of (39)$4487000
20 $300,000.
21 The project for flood control on the Illinois River is
22 hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom-
23 mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
24 Numbered 692, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $111,500.
25
27
1 (40i)7' he project for flood control on Farm Creek, Illinois,
2 is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
3 recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in his report of
4 November 16, 1944, at an estimated cost of $3,017,900.
5 The project on Elk Creek and Turkey Elver for local
6 flood protection at Elkport, Iowa, is hereby authorized sub-
7 stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
8 Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 700,
9 Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
10 cost of $13,000.
11 Eed Eivee of the Noeth Basin
12 The projects for flood control for Eed Lake Eiver, Min-
13 nesota, including Clearwater Eiver, Minnesota, are hereby
14 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
15 tions of the Chief of Engineers m House Document Numbered
16 345, Seventy-eighth Congress, fli’st session, at an estimated
17 cost of $902,940.
18 (40)TAe project for the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne
19 River for flood control and other purposes in the Sheyenne
20 River Basin, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substan-
21 tially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
22 of Engineers in Senate Document Numbered 193, Seventy-
23 eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
24 $810,000.
25 (41)T'/te projects for the construction of one reservoir on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
Pembina River and one on the Tongue River for flood con¬
trol and other 'purposes in the Pembina River Basin, North
Dakota, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 565, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $333,800.
(42) r/ie project for the construction of a reservoir on the
South Branch of Park River for flood control and other
purposes in the Park River Basin, North Dakota, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Num¬
bered 194, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $358,610.
Missoitei Eivee Basin
(43) Tfee general comprehensive plan ler h6e4 control an4
other purposes in the Missouri River Basin approved hf the
Aet ol June S87 1938, as modified hv subsequent, Acts, is
hereby expanded to include the. plan of improvement for
flood control^ imgation, power dcvelopmenty navigation, anfl
other purposcsj substantially in accordance with the rGcom -
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Hoeument
^fambered 44Sj Seventy-eighth Congress^ second session ;
and as expanded is approved ; andj in addition to previous
authorizationsj there is hereby duthorized to he appropriated
the sum of $-200,000,000 for the partial accomplishment of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
^ Gomprclicfisl^ fkm as modified aad expanded-; P^^emdedj
•That nothing in this Aet shah he eonsti-ned as eeeating below
Sienx Git¥ any demand upon the wate-r resonfees of the
Mdssonii Hiver -Basin above Sionx hhtv in exeess of that
now authorized by
portions of the
river shah be
and the Chief of
on
jaws -And pmvkUd further. That
for tire main stem: of the
if the ^eeretary of War
hnd sueli
•p/^v ctili
iv71 ollt/
eontrol and in order to maise more water readhy available
for agrienitnral and industrial use without impairment of
flood eontrol below^ Sioux Chy and without ineimsing the
authorized limit of eostr
The projeet adopted by the Aet of June 22, 1936, to
provide flood proteetion for the Kansas Citys, Kansas and
Missouri, is hereby modified and extended to provide for
improvement substantiaUy in aeeordanee with the reeom-
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Kumbered 342, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated additional cost for the modified project of
18,445,000 (44): Provided further, That neither this
authorization nor any previous authorization shall he con¬
strued to authorize the construction of a dam or reservoir at
the so-called Tuttle Greek site on the Big Blue River, a trib-
0
utary of the Kansas River in Kansas.
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1^1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
of August 18, 1941, for Cherry Creek and tributaries, Colo¬
rado, at an estimated cost of $7,500,000.
The project on Knife Eiver for local flood control at
Beulah, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 252, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $26,100.
The project on Knife Biver for local flood control at
Hazen, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 252, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $6,600.
The project on Milk Eiver adopted by the Act of June
22, 1936, to provide local flood protection at Harlem, Mon¬
tana, is hereby modified substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Docu¬
ment Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost of $21,100.'
The project on Milk Eiver for local flood protection at
I
Havre, Montana, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Senate Document Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress,
t
%
first session, at an estimated cost of $313,100.
The project on Boyer Eiver for local flood control on
31
1 East Fork of Boyer Biver at Denison, Iowa, is hereby
2 authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
3 tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
4 254, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
5 cost of $17,830.
6 The project on Nishnabotna Biver for local flood control
7 at Hamburg, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in ac-
8 cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
9 in House Document Numbered 253, Seventy-eighth Con-
10 gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $236,000.
11 plan of improvement for local flood protection
12 on the Chariton Biver, Missouri, is hereby authorized substan-
18 tially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
14 of Engineers in House Document Numbered 628, Seventy-
15 eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
16 $1,610,300.
17 The project on Bear Creek for local flood protection at
18 Morrison, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
19 accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
20 in House Document Numbered 356, Seventy-eighth Con-
21 gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $220,000.
22 Oino Bivee Basin
23 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
24 authorized to be appropriated the sum of $70,000,000 for
25 the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
32
4
1 Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by the Act approved
2 August 18, 1941, for the Ohio Eiver Basin, including the
3 following projects in tributary basins, namely:
4 The local flood protection works in the Lake Chautauqua
5 and Ohadakoin Eiver area, substantially in accordance with
6 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House ,
^ Document Numbered 685, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec-
8 ond session, at an estimated cost of $135,500 ;
9 The local flood protection works at Dillonvale and
\
10 Adena on Short Creek, Ohio, substantially in accordance
11 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
12 House Document Numbered 889, Seventy-seventh Congress,
18 second session, at an estimated cost of $158,200;
14 The local flood protection works at Taylorsville on Salt
15 Eiver, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the recom-
16 mendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
17 Nujnbered 105, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at
18 an estimated cost of $129,350;'
19 The local flood protection works at Latrobe on Loyal-
20 hanna Creek, Pennsylvania, substantially in accordance with
21 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
22 Document Numbered 444, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
23 session, at an estimated cost of $112,500;
24 (46)2' he plan of improvement for flood control and other
25 purposes in the Kentucky River Basin, substantially in ac-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 504, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $23,822,000 ;
i^l^The local flood protection works at Middleshorough on
Yellow Creek, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 495, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $205,200;
(48)2^/16 local flood protection works on the Bough River and
tributaries, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 535, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $360,000;
(44Y)The Turtle Creek Reservoir on Turtle Creek, Pennsyl-
\
vania, substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered
507, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $2,613,000;
The Burr Oak Eeservoir on the Hocking Kiver, Ohio,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 762,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $400,000 (50)-
Tire Bowlcsburg Eeservoir on the Cheat Eiveiv suh-
stnntialH m aceordance with the roeemmendations ef the
34
1 Chief ef Engineers ift the repert submitted te Congress by
2 the Secreta-ry ef War en E ovember 1-^42, at an esti-
3 mated east ef $2^72^0907 and
4 (51)Ehc improvement in the -YoughiogliGny -Eiver Basin,'
5 substantially in accerdanee with the rocommendatiens ef the
•/
6 Ohief ef Engineers in a repert submitted te Cengress by the
7 01 •i»Tr /v-P \\T c\ ■!» r\-y-\ 1\ OQ “I O/f Q rt f r>
^ CrlJ i O l/c4-l- \ v?x T T cl i vtXT CJXx m ^ y _L t-/ -L O ^ evu ttxT S t llU cl b U Cl. !_/ O o
8 ef $d7-70^'0700Qv
9 (52)^0 provision of this or any other Act shall be construed
10 to authorize the construction of the Shoals Dam on the East
11 Fork of the White River in Martin County, Indiana.
12 That the general comprehensive plan for flood control
13 and other purposes, approved in the Elood Control Act
14 of June 28, 1938, for the Ohio Eiver Basin, is hereby
15 modified to include the construction of flood-control works
16 for the protection of Eidgway, Johnsonburg, Saint Marys,
17 and Brockway and vicinity in the State of Pennsylvania.
18 Geeat Lae15s Basin
19 The project for the Panther Mountain Eeservoir on
20 Moose Eiver, Eew York, is hereby authorized substantially
21 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
22 Engineers in House Document Numbered 405, Seventy-
23 seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of
2d $600,000.
25
The project for flood control on Chittenango Creek and
35
1 tributaries, N’ew York, is hereby authorized substantially
2 in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
3 Engineers in House Document Numbered 625, Seventy-
4 seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
5 $111,000.
6 The projects for flood control on Owasco Inlet and Outlet,
7 Montville and Dry Creeks, State Ditch, and Crane Brook,
8 New York, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance
9 with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
10 House Document Numbered 815, Seventy-seventh Congress,
11 second session, at an estimated cost of $64,200.
12 (py)The project for the Mount Morris Beservoir on the
13 Genesee River, New York, is hereby authorized, substantially
14 in. accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
45 Engineers in House Docuinent Numbered 615, Seventy-
10 eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
17 $5,360,000.
18 COLOEADO EiVEE BaSIN (TeXAS)
i
19 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
20 authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
21 of August 18, 1941, for the North Concho Eiver, Texas, at
22 an estimated cost of $4,800,000.
23 In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
24 authorized the completion of the plan approved in the Act
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
36
of August 18, 1941, for Pecan Bayou, Texas, at an estimated
cost of $1,560,000.
Beazos Bive5 Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized the completion of Whitney Eeservoir in accord¬
ance 'with the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
for the Brazos Biver Basin, at an estimated cost of
$15,000,000.
Bio Geande Basin
The project on Willow Creek for local flood protection
at Creede, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in Senate Document Numbered 104, Seventy-eighth
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $68,500.
{b^'yGREAT Salt Basin
The project on the Sevier Biver for local flood protection
at Redmond, Utah, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of En¬
gineers in House Document Numbered 614, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $281,000.
ibN)CoLORADO Biver Basin
(^5&)The project for the Alamo Reservoir on the Bill Williams •
Biver, Arizona, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
House Document Numbered 625, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $3,202,000.
idl^The project on the Little Colorado River for local flood
f
protection at Holbrook, Arizona, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 648,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost
of $258,000.
San Diego River Basin
The project on the San Diego River for local flood pro¬
tection at San Diego, Cahfomia, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 635,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $370,000.
Ventura River Basin
The projects on the Ventura River and tributaries for
local flood protection at Ventura and Ojai, Cahfomia, are
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 323, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at
an estimated cost of $1,600,000.
Santa Ana River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
09
23
24
25
the prosecution of the projects approved in the Act of June
22, 1936, as modified by the Act of June 28, 1938, for the
Santa Ana Eiver Basin and for the protection of Orange
County, Oahfornia, including the projects on Lytle and
Cajon Creeks for local flood protection at San Bernardino
and Colton, California, in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers dated
February 11, 1944.
Los Angeles-San Gabeiel Basin and Ballona Ceeek
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $25,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of August 18, 1941, for Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Bivers and Ballona Creek, California.
(58)Pa/aeo River Basin
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on
the Pajaro River and tributaries, California, is hereby au¬
thorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num-
t
bered 505, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $511,160.
Saceamento-San Joaquin Eivee Basin
SACEAMENTO EIVEE
(59)Lhe prejeetS' for tho control of floods and other purposes
^ tho Saoi-amonto Eiver, Calif ornlaj adopted by the Acts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a^prevcd March 4-94-7j 3i4ay 4^ IrO^Sj August 2^ 4-937,-
aiid -xVugust lr8j 19447 are hereby modified substantially m
ncers for Rivers and Harbors dated F cbruaiy Tj F9-44, wbb
sneb medibeatiens tliereel as in the diseretion of the
tary of War and the Obief of Engineers may be
at an estimated eost of $46-, 056^000; and in addition to
The projects for the control of floods and other purposes
on the Sacramento River, California, adopted hy the Acts ap¬
proved March 1, 1917, May 15, 1928, August 26, 1937,
and August 18, 1941, are hereby modified substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 649, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $50,100,000;
and in addition to previous authorizations there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for
the prosecution of the modified projects : Provided, That this
modification of the project shall not be construed to authorize
the construction of a high dam at the Table Mountain site
but shall authorize only the low-level project to approxi-
I
mately the elevation of four hundred feet above mean sea
level, said low-level dam to be built on a foundation sufficient
for such dam and not on a foundation for future construction
of a higher dam.
(JdQ7)The project for the Folsom Reservoir on the American
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(LI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
River y California, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the plans contained in House Document
Numbered 649, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advis¬
able, at an estimated cost of $18,474,000.
SAN JOAQUIN EI\^E
The project for the Isabella Eeservoir on the Kern
Elver for flood control and other purposes in the San J oaquin
Valley, California, is hereby authorized substantially in ac¬
cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in his report dated January 26, 1944, contained in
House Document Numbered 513, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $6,800,000.
The plan for the Terminus and Success Eeservoirs on
the Kaweah and Tule Elvers for flood control and other
purposes in the San Joaquin Valley, California, in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Flood Control Committee Document Numbered 1, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, is approved, and there is
hereby authorized $4,600,000 for initiation and partial
accomplishment of the plan.
The project for flood control and other purposes for the
Kings Eiver and Tulare Lake Basin, California, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the plans con-
41
1 tained in House Document Numbered 630, Seventy-sixth
2 Congress, third session, with such modifications thereof as in
3 the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En-
4 gineers may be advisable at an estimated cost of $19,700,-
5 000: Provided, That the conditions of local cooperation
6 specified in said document shall not apply : Provided further,
7 That the Secretary of War shall make arrangements for pay-
8 ment to the United States by the State or other responsible
9 agency, either in lump sum or annual installments", for con-
10 servation storage when used: Provided further. That the
11 division of costs between flood control, and irrigation and
12 other water uses shall be determined by the Secretary of War
13 on the basis of continuing studies by the Bureau of Beclama-
14 tion, the War Department, and the local organizations.
15 The plan of' improvement for local flood protection on
16 various streams in the Merced County Stream Group in the
17 San Joaquin VaUey is hereby authorized substantially in ac-
18 cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
19 in House Document Numbered 473, Seventy-eighth Con-
20 gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $1,300,000.
21 The plan of improvement for flood control and other pur-
22 poses on the Lower San Joaquin Biver and tributaries, in-
23 eluding Tuolumne and Stanislaus Eivers, in accordance with
24 the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Flood Con-
25 trol Committee Document Numbered 2, Seventy-eighth Con-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
gress, second session, is approved, and there is hereby au¬
thorized $8,000,000 for initiation and partial accomplish¬
ment of the plan.
(JdXyTlie plan of improvement for flood control and other
purposes on the Calaveras Biver and Littlejohn Creek and
tributaries, California, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 545, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $3,868,200.
(^62')Napa Biver Basin
\
The project for the Conn Creek Beservoir on Conn
Creek for flood control and other purposes in the Napa
Biver Basin, California, is hereby authorized substantially
• * •
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 626, Seventy-eighth
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $460,000.
COQTJILLE EiVEE BaSIN
The project for flood protection on the Coquille Biver,
Oregon, is hereby authorized suhstantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 620, Seventy-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $143,000.
Nehalem Bivee Basin
The project for flood protection on the Hehalem Biver,
Oregon, is hereby authorized suhstantially in accordance with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 621, Sevent3^-seventh Congress, sec¬
ond session, at an estimated cost of $23,000.
Willamette Eivee Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated the sum of $20,000,000 for
the prosecution of the comprehensive plan approved in the
Act of June 28, 1938, for the Willamette Biver Basin, with
such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief
of Engineers may be advisable.
Columbia Blvee Basin
The projects on the Snake Biver for local flood protection
at Heise, Boberts, and Weiser, Idaho, are hereby authorized,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 452,
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $743,000.
The projects on the Palouse Biver and tributaries for
local flood protection at Pullman and Colfax, Washington,
are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 888, Seventy-seventh Congress, second ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $478,000.
The project on Alkah Canyon for local flood protection
at Arlington, Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document ISTumbered 631, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $118,000.
WiLLAPA Rivee Basin
The project on the Willapa River for local flood pro¬
tection at Raymond, Washington, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House . Document Numbered 701,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $127,000.
(Jd?>')CHEHALI8 BiVER BaSIN
The 'project on Chehalis Biver for local flood protection
at Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis, Washington, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 494, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $669,000.
(JdE)TERRITORY X)F HAWAII
The project on the Hanapepe Biver for local flood pro¬
tection at Hanapepe, Island of Kauai, Territory of Hawaii,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in the report sub¬
mitted to Congress by the Secretary of War on March 15,
1944, at an estimated cost of $73,000.
Sec. (65)8 11. The Secretary of War is hereby author-
45
1 ized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and sur-
2 veys for flood control and allied purposes, including channel
3 and major drainage improvements, to be made under the di-
4 rection of the Chief of Engineers, in drainage areas of the
h United States and its Territorial possessions, which include
6 the following-named localities, and the Secretary of Agricul-
ture is authorized and directed to cause preliminary examina-
8 tions and surveys for run-off and waterflow retardation and
^ soil-erosion prevention on such drainage areas ; the cost there¬
in of to be paid from appropriations heretofore or hereafter made
for such purposes : Provided, That after the regular or formal
reports made on any examination, survey, project, or work
under way or proposed are submitted to Congress, no supple-
14 mental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless
15 authorized by law except that the Secretary of War may
lb cause a review of any examination or survey to be made
I'f and a report thereon submitted to the Congress if such review
13 is required by the national defense or by changed physical
If^ or economic conditions : And provided further, That the Gov-
20 ernment shall not be deemed to have entered upon any
21 project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor
22 mentioned in this Act until the project for the proposed work
23 shall have been adopted by law :
24 (Jd^'yPasquotank River, North Carolina.
25 Chipola Eiver, Alabama and Florida.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
OO
ULk
23
24
25
46
Wacasassa Eiver and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Gilchrcst and Levy Counties, Florida.
Oklawaha Eiver and its tributaries, Florida, and of
adjacent areas in Alachua and Marion Comities, (67)Flerida7
Florida.
(QSyClear Fork of the Mohican Fiver, in Richland County,
Ohio.
Hocking Eiver in Hocking County, Ohio.
(QQyLeatherwood Creek, Ohio, with particular reference to
flood control and water supply for Cambridge, Ohio.
(l(f)For flood control, rice irrigation, navigation, pollution,
\
salt-water intrusion, and drainage on all streams and bayous
in southwest Louisiana, west of the West Atchafalaya Basin
protection levee, and south of the latitude of Boyce; on all
streams and bayous in Louisiana lying between the East
Atchafalaya Basin protection levee and the Mississippi River;
and on Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana,
Choctawbatchee Eiver, Florida.
Scajaquada Creek and its tributaries, Hew York.
Susquehanna Eiver in the vicinity of Endicott, John¬
son City, and Vestal, Hew York.
(lF)Absecon Island, New Jersey, with a view to the pro¬
tection of Atlantic City, Ventnor, Margate City, Longport,
and other areas on the New Jersey Coast, that have been
affected from floods due to tide and wind.
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
I
1
(12yJuniata River and trihiitajdes, Pennsylvania, with
special reference to the proposed Raystown Reservoir.
(ISyRehoboth Beach, Bethany Beach, Lewes, and Fenwick
Island, Delaware, and other points along the Delaware coast,
with a view to providing protection against damage resulting
from erosion and from floods due to wind and tide.
Buffalo Kiver, Minnesota.
Wild Bice Biver, Minnesota.
Marsh Biver, Minnesota.
Sand Hill Biver, Minnesota.
Bed Lake Biver, Minnesota.
Boseau Biver, Minnesota.
Snake Biver, Minnesota.
Middle Biver, Minnesota.
t
Tamarac Biver, Minnesota.
Two Bivers, Minnesota.
Warroad Biver and Bull Dog Creek, Minnesota.
Mississippi Biver and its tributaries, in the County of
Aitkin, Minnesota.
Apple Biver, Joe Daviess County, Illinois.
Maumee Biver, Indiana and Ohio.
*
Indian Creek, Indiana.
{lF)You(jhiogheny River Ifasin, Pennsylvania and Mary¬
land.
(IbyReno Beach, Lucas County, Ohio, with a view to pro-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
tection of the Reno Beach-Howards Farm area and adjacent
areas from floods caused hy frequent windstorms and from
increases in the lake level of Lake Erie.
\
(IQ'yArkansas Riyer above Pine Bluff, Arkansas, with
special reference to control of caving hanks in the vicinity
of Hensley Bar and the McFadden Place, in Jefferson
County, Arkansas.
Osage Eiver, Missouri and Kansas.
(ll^Big Canyon on Washita River in Murray County,
Oklahoma.
Deep Eed Eun in Tillman County, Oklahoma; Big Elk
Creek, Little Elk Creek, Salt Fork, Elm Creek, Saddle
Mountain, Turkey Creek, Oklahoma.
San Eafael Creek and its tributaries, California.
(J8')Napa River, California.
Grand Eiver, South Dakota.
Moreau Eiver, South Dakota.
(IjyCorte Madera Creek, Marin County , California.
Bayamon and Hondo Eivers and their tributaries,
Municipahty of Bayamon, Puerto Eico.
(80')Elkhorn River and its tributaries, Nebraska.
Sec. (81)9 12. That the sum of (82)$8-l€M)00-,000
$959,465,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated for
carrying out the improvements herein, the sum of $10,000,000
additional is authorized to be appropriated and expended in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
equal amounts by the Departments of War and Agriculture
for carrying out any examination or survey provided for in
this Act and any other Acts of Congress, to be prosecuted by
said Departments. The sum of $1,500,000 additional is
authorized to be appropriated and expended by the Dederal
Power Commission for carrying out any examinations and
surveys provided for in this Act or any other Acts of Con¬
gress, to be prosecuted by the said Pederal Power Commis'
sion.
(83)P/ie sum of $500,000 additional is authorized to he
appropriated as an emergency fund to be expended under
the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision
of the Chief of Enyineers for the construction of emeryency
protection works to prevent flood damaye to hiyhways,
hridye approaches and public works: Provided, That pend-
iny the appropriation of said sum the Secretary of War
may allot from existiny flood control appropriations such
sums as may be necessary for the immediate prosecution of
such bank protection works; such appropriations to be reim¬
bursed from the appropriation herein authorized when made.
Spx'. (84)40 13. That the following works of improve-
nient for run-off and waterflow retardation, and soil-erosion
prevention, are hereby ado])ted and authorized in the interest
of the national securit}^ and with a view toward an adequate
reservoir of useful and worthy public works for the post-war
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
50
construction program to be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture, under the direction of the Secretary of Agricul¬
ture, in accordance with the plans of the respective reports
hereinafter designated and subject to the conditions set forth
therein : Provided, That the necessary plans and preliminary"
work may be prosecuted during the war with funds from
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such works
so as to be ready for rapid inauguration of post-war con¬
struction: Provided further, That when the existing critical
situation with respect to materials, equipment, and manpower,
no longer exists and in any event not later than immediately
i
following the cessation of hostihties in the present war, the
projects herein shall be initiated as expeditiously and prose¬
cuted as vigorously as may be consistent with budgetary
requirements C85); Provided, further, That nothing in thi^
section shall be construed as approving or authorizing the
acquisition of any land by the Federal Government.
Los Angeles Etvee Basin
The program on the Los Angeles Eiver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 426, Seventy-seventh Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$8,380,000,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
51
Ynez River Watershed
The 'program on the Santa Ynez River watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 518, Seventy-eighth Congress, first ses¬
sion, at an- estimated cost to the United States of $418,000.
Teinity Eivbe Basin (Texas)
The ’ program on the Trinity Biver watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
Numbered 708, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost to the United States of (87)|32-,Q0070QO
$27,348,000.
Little Tallahatchie Bivee Wateeshed
The program on the Little Tallahatchie Biver water¬
shed is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the
recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 892, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
(88)$1,22 1,000 $2,171,000.
(89) Yazoo River W atershed
The program on the Yazoo River watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House Docu~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
merit Numbered 564, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost to the United States of $12,500,000.
Coosa Eiver Watershed (Above Eome, Georgia)
The program on the Coosa Eiver watershed above
Eome, Georgia, is hereby approved substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of
Agriculture in House Document I^umbered 236, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, . at an estimated cost to the
United States of $1,233,000.
Little Sioux Eiver Watershed
The program on the Little Sioux Eiver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 268, Seventy-eighth Congress,
first session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$4,280,000.
Potomac Eiver Watershed
The program on the Potomac Eiver watershed is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 269, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of $859,000.
p
(90)E UFEALO Creek Watershed (New York)
BUFFALO, CAYUGA, AND CAZENOVIA CREEKS
The program on the watershed of Buffalo Creek and its
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
tributaries, Cayuga, and Cazenovia Creeks, is hereby ap¬
proved substantially in accordance with the recommendation
\
of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House Document
Numbered 574, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost to the United States of $739,000.
CoLOEADO Rivee Wateeshed (Texas)
The program on those portions of the Colorado River
v^atershed included in the watersheds of Pecan Bayou, San
Saba River, Brady Creek, and the area tributary to the main
stream of the Colorado River below its confluence with the
Concho River and above the mouth of Pecan Bayou, is
hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in House
Document Numbered 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost to the United States of
$2,693,000. '
Washita Rivee Wateeshed
The program on the Washita River watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Under Secretary of Agriculture in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 275, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session,
at an estimated cost to the United States of (9 1 )$4 172 4-3, 000
$7,007,000.
Sec. (92)P4 14. That the balance remaining from the
authorization of $10,000,000 provided in section 7 of the
54
1 Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, for the five-year
2 period ending June 30, 1944, to correlate the program for the
3 improvement of watersheds hy the Department of Agriculture
4 for measures of run-ofi and waterflow retardation and soil-
5 erosion prevention on the watersheds with the program for
6 the improvement of rivers and other waterways by the De-
7 partment of War is hereby reauthorized to be expended dui-
8 ing the post-war period by the Department of Agriculture
9 for the prosecution of the work authorized in section (93)40
19 ±2 of this Act : Provided, That not more than 20 per centum
11 of the authorization made available herein shall be expended
12 on any one project.
12 Sec. (94)42 15. That section 7 of the Act of June 28,
14 1938 (Public, Numbered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress, is
15 hereby amended by adding at the end of the first sentence
16 thereof the following : “The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby
17 authorized in his discretion to undertake such emergency
18 measures for run-ofi retardation and soil-erosion prevention
19 as may be needed to safeguard lives and property from floods
20 and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire
21 or any other natural element or force has caused a sudden
22 impairment of that watershed: Provided, That not to exceed
23 $100,000 out of any funds heretofore or hereafter appro-
24 priated for the prosecution by the Secretary of Agriculture of
25 works of improvement or measures for run-ofi and water-
55
1 flow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds
2 may be expended during any one fiscal year for such emer-
3 gency measures.”
Passed the House of Eepresentatives May 9, 1944.
Attest: SOUTH TEIMBLE,
Clerk.
Passed the Senate with amendments December 1 (legis¬
lative day, November 21), 1944.
Attest: EDWIN A. HALSEY,
Secretary.
}
a
i-j
ct>
a
O'
o
d
H
O
S
D3
H
93
02 P
C3 ^
p fii
<t> ^
P
c O'
I -
2^ tr
^ fD
a. p
S
p
B
(t>
D
(t)
erg
<1
Qj
p
Jz:
o
<3
H
g
W
w
p
IB .
O'
CD
cc
H
t>
§
d
i2l
I
o
cc
CD ®
o o
S “
^ § 0^
rt-
O I-S S
M t— • M
^ <1 CD
O CD ^
c^" 1^ CD
tr- CO O
CD ^
>-i
P cn
■d S. ?
O H? O
P ? o
CO K>
l-b O
O CD
^ 3-
pi S.
§ ^
Pj ►cj
« &
' o S
3
I C5
>
z
>
n
H
•5
* 00
H
N5W
mQ
M O
CO 2
2 Q
i W
^ H
ui
ui
a:
9C
00
cn
i
OFFICE OF BUEGET MID FIEMCE
Legislative Reports and Service Section
7Sth-Zrd', llo. I73
DIGEST OF PROCEEDINGS
(issued December
OF CONGRESS OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTIIENT OF AGRICUL.^NRE
12, 1944, for actions of Monday, DeceraLer 11, 1944^’
staff of Departraent only)
(Fo
\
A.A.A. . . .\ . b
Assistant Secretaries
of State . 34
Coconut tariff . 2
Committee assignment .. .lb
Cooperatives . . 4
Crop insurance......... 4
Economy . 3
Electrif i cation . \1, 4
Executive authority. . .A27
Farm program . . 4
Farm security . b-
Fertilizer . 23
Flood control . 10
Foreign trade . 4,5
1. RI'^IERS AND HARBORS BILL
7b, 9281-94).,.
Daring the dehate
of the St. Lawrence
farmer cheap electric power
Ship stead, Minn.
CONTENTS
Forestry. - - - 7, 11717a, 25
Housing . 27
Labor, farm . 4
Lend-lease . 4
Loans, farm . 4,b
Minerals . 26
Parity . 4
Personnel. .3,8,12,17,29,33
Post-war ,
planning . 1,5,22,24
Price control . 4,22'
Property management. . .5.?^
Reclamation . 9.>24
R.E.c . . . /.13
Research . .4 . 3I
SENATE
Co'htinued debate, ^'h this bill
> '
Rivers and'harbors bill..l
Road authorization . 7
■Rubber. .' .
Small -business ,.5a, 14,26 ^30^32
Social security . .19
Soi^ conservation . 4
Subsidies . 4
•Taxation . 12, 21
ji^Transportation . 1, 4
Travel . . . g
JeteTans . 20,29,33,35
veto power . Ig
'¥ar effort . .15
Water conservation . 5
H. R. 39bl (pp. 9250“
Sen. Lahger, N. Dak., spoke in favor of the development
waterv/ay . to reduce grain shipping costs and bring to the
_ (p. 92,J4}^-'. Sen. Aiken, Yt., (for himself and Sens.
and Ferguson, Mich.) offered an amendment providing for the
post-war development of this waterway (p. 9291)*
Agreed to Sen. Hill's (Ala.,)' reauest to vote on the St, Lawrence waterway
not later than 3*«00 today (Dec«"l2) (p."’"9294).
2. COCONUT TARIFF. Passed with^t amendment H. R, 1033> 'to suspend during the •
emergency the tariff duty ^ coconuts (p. 9274). This bill will nox^r be sent
to the President.. J
y
3. PERSONNEL; ECONOMY. Received the Reduction of Nonessential I’ederal Expenditures
(Byrd) Committee report on civilian employment in the executive branch for
October 1944 (up. 9^7-8).
.t
4. FARM PROGRAM, Sen<^ Capper, Kans. , inserted a report of the National Grange's
legislative pro^/ara favoring foreign trade development, support prices, pari
prices vhich ipblude farm-labor costs, relaxation of Government controls,
cooperatives ,j>'farm credit , crop insurance, extension of rur’a,! electrification,
rural healtyprograms , cotton program based on soil conservation, and revision
of Lend-Le^e Act to prevent its use for non-war purposes; andp opposing freiAit-
rate incr^jfeses, corporation farming, and subsidies in lieu of fair prices
923^-7). ■ •
/
5. POST-W^ PLANNING. Sen. Kilgore, W. Ya. , inserted the American Legion Commis-
siory'^on Post-War America's report favoring free enterprise as a means of
fostering post-war employment , prompt settlement of war contra-cts, disposal
of ^ surplus property according to the Baruch- Hancock report, abandonment of
Q^vernment controls, simplified taxes, . small- business credit, soil and water
conservetion programs, and domestic- and foreign-market development (pp.924l-2).
- 2 -
5a, APPROPRIATIONS; SMALL BUSINESS© Received from the President a supplemental
appropriation estimate of $100,000,000 for the payment of capital stock of the
Smaller War Plants Corporation. ( SI Doc, 25^), ^'o Appropriations Committee,
(p. 9?35.)
HOUSE
6. FARM LOANj?. Passed witfe,_amendment S. l6SS, to authorize the Secretary of ^
Agriculture to adjust, con^romise , or cancel certain indebtedness of farmers
for seed-feed loans, for l5^,s made through FSA, excessive AAA payments, etc.
(pp. 930^“9) • Agreed, 43-32, "IsQ,, Rep. Cochran* s C^o . ) amendment to strike out
the section requiring semi-a'nnuat’Mr^eports to Congress regarding such cancella¬
tions, etc. (p. 930s).
7. ROAD-AUTIIOEIZATION BILL. Received the conference report on this hill, S. 2105
(pp. 9320-3).
The conferees adopted the House figure of $5QP»000,000 (Senate, $450,OCO,OOG
The amounts for forest highways ($25, 000, 000 ) and I‘i6-rest development roads
and trails ($12, 500,000 ) remain unchanged. '
^ X
8. TRAVEL. Passed-'idthout amendment H. R, 4547, to permit corap^iatgation, on a
mileage basis, of civilian officers or employees for the use o’&w.privately
owned airplanes while traveling on official business (pp. 9325“6r;,
■V
9. RECLAMATION. Discussed and, at the request of Rep. Barden, N. G. , passed over
H. 'R. 4932, to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 so extend '^tJae
time in which amendatory contracts may be made (pp. 9317“9)» ' .
10. FLOOD CONTROL. Received the conference report on H. R. 4485, "the flood- control |
bill (up. 9309-12). " I
The conferees .recommended provisions: I
For State approval in determining v/atershed development; for State review |
of War and Interior reports; and prohibiting the use of vrestern waters in /
conflict with their beneficial consumptive use. 'l!
Authorizing Interior to dispose of excess electric energy generated at
War Department reservoir projects, ■
For recognition of established laws and principles pertaining to water j
ownership in the Western States and storage of surplus water at War Department
reservoirs.
To limit the authority of the Secretary of War to the issuance of instmic-
tions for release of Tennessee River water when floods threaten.
For "more effective administration in relation to the various technical
features of the Federal reclamation laws” and to establish 'k procedure for the
utilization of multiple-purpose projects for irrigation purpose when the
Secretary of War determines ... that a project may be utilized for irrigation
; purposes, "
■' For comprehensive plans for the development of the Missouri River Basin |
as proposed in S. Doc. 247, 7Sth Cong., and authorizations for $200,000,000
for the Corps of Engineers and $200,000,000 for the Secretary of the Interior
for part of this work.
For reimbursement for levee rights-of-way at actual market value regard-
id. less of State law and limiting payments to local tax assessment valuations.' ^
That in connection with Agriculture Deuartment projects, land may be j
acquired, but only with the consent of the States and with payments in lieu
of taxes. !
For authorizations of Agriculture Department projects as follows:
Santa Ynez watershed, $434,000 ,•
Trinity River Basin, $32,000,000
■- V
IfsTH ^ONGRESS ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES j Report
’ ed Session ) (No. 2051
- . » ■ -
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD
WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
December 1], 1944. — Ordered to be printed
Mr. Whittington, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 4485]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 4485)
entitled “An act authorizing the construction of certain public works
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes,”
having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
Amendment numbered 27:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 27.
Amendment numbered 30:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 30.
Amendment numbered 36:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 36.
Amendment numbered 39:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 39.
Amendment numbered 44:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 44.
Amendments numbered 87 and 88.
That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 87 and 88.
Amendment numbered 91:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered 91.
Amendments numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of
tire Senate numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 10:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 10 and agree to the same.
2 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTI^ql ^
Amendments numbered 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 and agree to
the same.
Amendments numbered 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, and agree to the
same.
Amendments numbered 28 and 29:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 28 and 29 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 31 and 32:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 31 and 32 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 34 and 35:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered 34 and 35 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 38:
That the House recode from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 38 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 40, 41, 42, and 43:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 40, 41, 42, and 43 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51 and agree to the
same.
Amendments numbered 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of
the Senate numbered 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 and
agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 84:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 84 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 90:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 90 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 92:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 92 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 94: *
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 94 and agree to the same.
RE'oirs, levees, and flood walls for flood control 3
1 .
Amendment numbered 1 :
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment as
i follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 1, strike out lines 3 through 11
and on page 2, strike out lines 1 through 4; and the Senate agree to the
i same.
Amendment numbered 8:
I That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
!"of the Senate numbered 8, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 8,' line 4, insert commas after the
word “generally” and after the word “charge”; and the Senate agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 9:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 9, and agree to the same with amendments, as
follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 8, line 24, after the period
insert the following: Bate schedules shall be drawn having regard to
the recovery {upon the basis of the application oj such rate schedules to
the capacity oj the electric facilities o f the projects) of the cost of producing
and transmitting such electric energy, including the amortization of
the capital investment allocated to power over a reasonable period
of years) on page 9, line 2, before the word “to” insert the following:
from funds to be appropriated by the Congress) line 2, strike out the
word “and” and insert in lieu thereof the word or; line 2, after the
Iword “acquire” insert the words by purchase or other agreement) line 8,
* fter the period insert the words All moneys received from such sales
shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts) and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 1 1 :
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 11, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 13, after the word “uses” insert the
word /or; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 19:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 19, and agree to the same with amendments, as
follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 23, after the word “prosecuted”
insert the words on any project authorized in this Act to be constructed
by the War Deparhnent) page 14, line 11, strike out the word “herein”
and after the word “authorized” insert the words in this Act for con¬
struction by the War Department) and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 26:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 26, and agree to the same with amendments,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 17, after the word “provided”
insert the words that the Secretary of War determines that) line 18, after
the word “and” insert the word that) and the Senate agree to the same.
I
4 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD ^ I
Amendment numbered 33:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 33, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 21, strike out lines 10 through
25, and on page 22, strike out lines 1 and 2 and insert in lieu thereof
the following: Paragraph (d) of the Lower Mississippi River item in
section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18,1 Gfl , is hereby construed jj
to authorize reiinbursement for the actual market value of lands, rights-of- ^
way, and easements, furnished subsequent to Augsut 18, 1941, for se<-*j
backs of main-line Mississippi River levees, regardless of State laws
limiting payments to local tax assessment valuations; and the Senate
agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 37 : j
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of j
the Senate numbered 37, and agree to the same with an amendment, '
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, change the colon on line 17 to a period [-
and strike out the remainder of that line and all of lines 18 and 19.
Amendment numbered 40)2:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment |
of the Senate numbered 40)^, and agree to the same with an amend¬
ment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on line 3, strike out the words “his
report of” and on line 4, strike out the words “November 16, 1944”, I
and insert the words House Document Numbered 802, Seventy-eighth \
Congress, Second Session, ; and the Senate agree to the same. j
Amendment numbered 52:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of j
the Senate numbered 52, and agree to the same with amendments, as j
follows: !
In said Senate amendment, line 9, strike out the words “No provision
of thus or any other Act” and insert the words Neither this authori¬
zation nor any previous authorization; line 11, change the period to a
comma and insert the following j)ending submission and adoption by
Congress of the report authorized in the Flood Control Act of August 11,
1939.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendrrient numbered 82:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment |
of the Senate numbered 82, and agree to the same with amendments, i
as follows: |
In said Senate amendment, line 23, strike out the figures ■
“$959,465,000” and insert in lieu thereof the figures $950,000,000; \
line 24 after the word “herein” insert the words by the War Department; ;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 83:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 83, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 14, before the word “protection”
insert the word bank; and the Senate agree to the same.
REvoirs, levees, and flood walls for flood control 5
Amenclment numbered 85:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered 85, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 17, delete the period after the word
“government” and add the following: until the legislature of the state
in which the land lies shall have consented to the acquisition of lands
by the United States for the purposes within the scope of this section:
.Provided further , That there shall be paid annually to the county in which
)any lands acquired under this section may lie, a sum equal to one per
centum of the purchase price paid for the lands acquired in that county
or, if not acquired by purchase, one per centum of their valuation at the
time of their acquisition.
Aiid the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 86:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 86, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 6, strike out the figures “$418,000”
and insert in lieu thereof the figures $434,000] and the Senate agree to
the same.
Amendment numbered 89:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 89, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 52, line 2, strike out the figures
.“$12,500,000” and insert in lieu thereof the figures $21,700,000; and
'^he Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 9.3:
That the House recede fro.m its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 93, and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 10, strike out the figures “12” and
insert in lieu thereof the figures 13; and the Senate agree to the same.
Will M. Whittington,
A. Leonard Allen,
A. J. Elliott,
Charles R. Clason,
Carl T. Curtis,
Managers on the part of the House.
JosiAH W. Bailey,
John H. Overton,
Theo. G. Bilbo,
Harold H. Burton,
Owen Brewster,
Hattie W. Caraway,
Bennett Champ Clark,
Hiram W. Johnson,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
7
)oL i'
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate
to the bill (H. K. 4485) entitled “An act authorizing the construction! |
of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for B
other purposes” submit the following statement in explanation of the *
effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompany¬
ing conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:
AMENDMENTS
Amendment No. 1: This amendment of the Senate as modified de¬
clares it to be the Federal policy to recognize the interest and rights
of the States in determining the development of watersheds within
their borders and their interests and rights in waTeF*utilization and
control. It provides for review of reports of the Chief of Engineers
and of the Secretary of the Interior by the State or States affected by
the reports, and the comments of such affected States will become a
part of the report when transmitted to Congress and published as a
House or Senate document. In cases of plans or proposals concerned
with the use or control of waters which rise in whole or in part west
of the ninety-seventh meridian, the written views and recommenda¬
tions of the Secretary of the Interior also become a part of the report
of the Chief of Engineers and the written views and recommendation^ j
of the Secretary of War become part of the report of the Secretary of'!
the Interior. The amendment also provides that in connection with
the operation and maintenance of projects authorized in this act,
the use of waters of the Western States for navigation shall not con¬
flict with beneficial consumptive use of the water for domestic, munic¬
ipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes.
Amendment No. 2: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 1 of the bill passed by the House to section 2 of
the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 3: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 2 of the bill passed by the House to section 3 of
the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 4: This amendment of the Senate changes the desig¬
nation of section 3 of the bill passed by the House to section 4 of the
bill passed by the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, and 7: These amendments of the Senate
insert additional wording for clarification of the bill.
Amendment No. 8: Tbis amendment of the Senate provides that
preference in the granting of leases for the use of areas suitable for
public park and recreational purposes shall be given to Federal,
State, or local governmental agencies; that water areas shall be open
to Uie general public without charge; and that no use of any area to
which section 4 applies shall be permitted which is mconsistent with
6
■ RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 7
f the laws for the protection of fish and game of the state in which such
f area is situated.
I Amendment No. 9: This amendment of the Senate, as modified,
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of electric energy
generated at reservoir projects under control of the War Department
not required in the operation of such projects; authorizes, from funds
|, to be appropriated by the Congress, the construction, or acquisition
by purchase or other agreement, of such transmission lines or related
(facilities as may be necessary in order to make the power and energy
generated at such projects available in wholesale quantities on fair
and reasonable terms and conditions ; it establishes a preference in the
sale of such power and energy to public bodies and cooperatives;
and it provides that all moneys received from such sales shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts. It follows the formula previously established by law for the
Boimeville project that rate schedules shall be drawn with regard to
recovering to the Government the cost of producing and transmitting
the electric energy, including the amortization of the capital invest¬
ment allocated to power, over a reasonable period of years.
Amendment No. 10: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 4 of the bill passed by the House to section 6
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 13: These amendments of the Senate
recognize the established laws and principles pertaining to ownersliip
of the waters in the Western States and clarifies the House-approved
language by authorizing contracts for storage of surplus water at
War Department reservoirs rather than sale of such water.
Amendment No. 12: This amendment of the Senate protects
existing lawlul uses of surplus water available at reservoirs under the
control of the War Department.
Amendment No. 14: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 5 of the bill passed by the House to section 7
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 15: This amendment of the Senate clarifies the
bill by substituting the word “allocated” for “available”.
Amendment No. 16: This amendment of the Senate defines and
limits the authority of the Secretary of War with regard to the reser¬
voirs under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority to
only the issuing of instructions for release of water from the Tennessee
River into the Ohio River at such times as there is danger from floods
on the lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. _
Amendment No. 17: This amendment of the Senate replaces section i
6 of the House approved bill with certain modified language sub¬
stantially as rquested by the Secretary of the Interior and constitutes
section 8 of the Senate approved bill. The Senate language will
provide for more effective administration in relation to the various
technical features of the Federal reclamation law. It establishes a
procedure for the utilization of multiple-purpose projects for irriga¬
tion purposes when the Secretary of War determines upon recom¬
mendations of the Secretary of the Interior that a project operated
under the direction of the Secretary of War may be utilized for
irrigation purposes.
Amendment No. 18: This amendment of the Senate is a new sec¬
tion which authorizes the comprehensive plans for the development
8 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL i
of the Missouri River Basin proposed by the War Department and '
the Department of the Interior, as coordinated by the joint report of
the Chief of Enguieers and the Commissioner of Reclamation (Sc. Doc.
No. 247 of the 78th Cong.), and it authorizes the appropriation of $200,- !
000,000 to be expended by the Corps of Engineers and $200,000,000 ij
to be expended by the Secretary of the Interior for the partial accom¬
plishment of the works authorized in this section to be undertaken ■
by the Corps of Engineers and by the Secretary of the Interior.
This section replaces the item in the House-approved bill, which .
expanded the approved general comprehensive plan for flood control I
in the Missouri River Basin to include the work recommended by the
Corps of Engineers and authorized an appropriation of $200,000,000
for the partial accomplishment of that work. The Senate has recently
accepted an amendment to the river and harbor bill (H. R. 3961) the
effect of which is to provide duplicate authorization for the coordi¬
nated comprehensive plans for the Missouri River Basin. Such duplicate ,
authority is undesirable and the Senate conferees have given assurances
that if this conference report is approved by the House and Senate the •
duplicating item will be eliminated from the river and harbor bill.
Amendment No. 19: This amendment of the Senate, as modified,
changes the designation of section 7 of the bill passed by the House to '
section 10 of the bill passed by the Senate; and clarifies the language i
in the House-approved bill to show that the authority for planning
projects and for installation of penstocks applies to all projects author¬
ized in this bill for the War Department and does not exclude War
Department projects in the Missouri River Basin contained in an
earlier section of the bill.
Amendment No. 20: This amendment of the Senate modifies the
existing Waterbury, Wrightsville, and East Barre Lams in the Wi- j
nooski River Basin to provide adequate spillway capacity for present 1
design floods, at an estimated cost of $2,120,000.
Amendment No. 21: This amen-dment of the Senate adds a title for
an additional river basin; namely, the Blackstone River Basin.
Amendment No. 22: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of the West Hill Reservoir on the West River in Massa¬
chusetts for flood control and other purposes, at an estimated cost of
$1,070,000.
Amendment No. 23: This amendment of the Senate authorizes a
project on the Blackstone River for local flood protection at Worcester,
Mass., by means of a diversion conduit and channel, at an estimated
cost of $2,232,000.
Amendment No. 24: This amendment of the Senate authorizes a
project on the Blackstone River for local flood protection at Woon¬
socket, R. I., by means of channel improvement, at an estimated cost
of $803,000.
Amendment No. 25: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
project for local flood protection on the Seekonk River at Pawtucket,
R. j., by means of levees for the protection of the city and adjacent
areas, at an estimated cost of $82,000.
Amendment No. 26: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
Army engineers to construct eight reservoirs in the West River Basin
in Vermont instead of the flood-control reservoir authorized by existing
law at the Williamsville site in the towns of Dummerston or Newfane,
in accordance with an alternative plan submitted by the Vermont
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 9
State Water Conservation Board as that plan may be modified by
agreement between the Board and the Secretary of War and the Chief
of Engineers; provided that the total cost of the alternate plan as
determined by the Secretary of War does not exceed the sum of
$11,000,000, and that 75 percent of the flood-control can be secured
from that plan which may be secured from the Williamsville Keservoir.
In the event that the eight-reservoir plan does not satisfy the above
requirements, the Army engineers are authorized to proceed with the
.construction of the I^filliamsville project for flood control. The
I amendment also requires a further report and subsequent authoriza¬
tion by Congress before the projects at Cambridgeport, Ludlow,
South Tunbridge, and Gaysville can be built. And it prohibits the
construction of a dam or reservoir at the Sugar Hill site on the Arn-
monoosuc River under previous authority or that contained in this
bill. It is understood that an alternate site is under study and if
found feasible authority exists for initiation of such project.
Amendment No. 27: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from this amendment which would have required a further
report and subsequent authorization prior to the initiation of the
House-approved project for the Thomaston Reservoir on the Nauga¬
tuck River for flood control in the Housatonic River Basin, Conn., at
an estimated cost of $5,151,000. If further study discloses that the
project should be abandoned or modified extensively the Chief of
Engineers will withhold initiation of construction.
Amendment No. 28: This amendment of the Senate eliminates
the Raystown Reservoir on the Raystown Branch of the Juniata
River, Pa., for flood control and other purposes, for which the House-
approved bill authorized $2,000,000 for the initiation and partial
^accomplishment.
P Amendment No. ,29: This amendment of the Senate approves a
general plan for the long-range, comprehensive development of the
Roanoke River Basin for flood control and other purposes, and
authorizes the construction of the Buggs Island Reservoir on the
Roanoke River in Virginia and North Carolina and the Philpott
Reservoir on the Smith River in Virginia, at an estimated cost of
$36,140,000. ^ 1 o ^
Amendment No. 30: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from this amendment, thereby eliminating the Yadldn-Pee
Dee project from the bill. It is expected that a restudy of the basin
may be authorized by committee resolutions at a later date.
Amendment No. 31: This amendment of the Senate authorizes a
project for the Edisto River Basin in South Carolina, consisting of
channel and bank clearing along 43 miles of Edisto River and its
north and south forks, at an estimated cost of $139,000.
Amendment No. 32: This amendment of the Senate approves the
general plan for the long-range, comprehensive development of the
Savannah River Basin for flood control and other purposes and
authorizes the construction of the Clark Hill Reservoir on the Savan¬
nah River in South Carolina and Georgia, at an estimated cost of
$35,300,000. The river and harbor bill, H. R. 3961, as passed by
the House contains an item for the Sa,vannah River, the effect of
which is to provide duplicate authorization for the Clark Hill Reser¬
voir project. Such duplicate authority is undesirable and the Senate
10 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL |
Conferees have given assurances that if this conference report is ap-
pr-oved by the House and Senate the duplicating item will be ehminated
from the river and harbor bill. 1
Amendment No. 33: Under the laws of the State of Louisiana and |
existing Federal laws, local interests in acquiring easements and levee )
rights-of-way may not pay more than the assessed value of the i
property, and the assessed value is usually lower than the actual i
market value. This amendment of the Senate establishes a construe- i
tion of existing law to allow reimbursements for levee rights-of-way i
at actual market value regardless of State laws, limiting payments I
to local tax assessment valuations, thereby placing Louisiana and I
other States on the same basis for reimbursement. '
Amendment No. 34: This amendment of the Senate authorizes ;
local flood control and bank protection in the vicinity of Shreveport, '
La., at an estimated cost of $3,000,000.
Amendment No. 35: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the i
Blakely Mountain Dam and Reservoir on the Ouachita River for l
flood control and other puiqDoses, at an estimated cost of $11,080,000. '
Amendment No. 36: The conferees recommend that the Senate j
recede from this amendment, thereby eliminating the authority for i
modifying the project to include reservoirs upstream from Trinidad, j
The conferees agree that a modification of this magnitude should be 1
undertaken only after full report by the Chief of Engineers and I
authorization by Congress. The appropriate investigation and report '
to Congress are now in progress.
Amendment No. 37: This amendment of the Senate as modified i
incorporates a project for the construction of the Red Rock Dam l
on the Des Moines River for flood control and other purposes into '
the approved general comprehensive plan for flood control in theij
upper Mississippi River Basin. The estimated cost of the Red Rock"i
Dam and Reservoir on the Des Moines River is $15,000,000. The i
modification agreed to by the conferees removes the rigid restriction i
on elevation of spillway crest. The Chief of Engineers will, within ^
existing authority, make any modifications in the design needed to
protect existing sewers and public facilities.
Amendment No. 38: This amendment of the Senate authorizes a
project for local flood protection on the Des Moines River at the city
of Des Moines, Iowa, by means of levees, at an estimated cost of
$270,000.
Amendment No. 39: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from tliis amendment, thereby restoring the estimated cost of
the project as contained in the bill passed by the House.
Amendment No. 40^: This amendment of the Senate as modified
authorizes five small detention reservoirs for local flood control on
Farm Creek, Ill. and for the protection of East Peoria, in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, at an estimated
cost of $3,017,900.
Amendment No. 40: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne River for
flood control and other purposes at an estimated cost of $810,000. i
Amendment No. 41: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of one reservoir on the Pembina River and one on the
Tongue River for flood control and other purposes in the Pembina
River Basin in North Dakota, at an estimated cost of $333,800.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL H
Amendment No. 42; Tliis amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of a reservoir on the south branch of Park River for flood
control and other purposes, at an estimated cost of $358,610.
Amendment No. 43: Tliis amendment of the Senate eliminates the
language in the House-approved bill for the Missouri River Basin,
wliich has been superseded by Senate amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 44: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from this amendment, thereby eliminating the language which
would have removed the Tuttle Creek project from the comprehen¬
sive plan for the Missouri River Basin. The Chief of Engineers is
now making an investigation of possible alternate projects and if
feasible will recommend them as substitutes for Tuttle Creek. The
conferees, however, in eliminating the amendment recognize the
necessity for adequate reservoir control in the plan for protecting
the Kansas Citys and leave the way open for selection of Tuttle
Creek Reservoir if alternates are found to be infeasible.
Amendment No. 45: This amendjaient of the Senate authorizes a
project for local flood protection on the Chariton River, Mo., con¬
sisting of channel and levee improvements, at an estimated cost of
$1,610,300.
Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, and 49. These amendments of the
Senate expand the approved general comprehensive plan for flood
control in the Ohio River Basin adopted by the act approved June
28, 1938, as modified by the act approved August 18, 1941, to include:
(a) Improvement in the Kentucky River Basin, consisting of the
construction of a cut-off at the north fork of Kentuckj^ River at
Jackson and local flood protection at that community, and the
modification of the plan for the Jessamine Creek, and Booneville
projects to include the develop.ment of hydroelectric power at these
sites, all at an estimated cost of $23,822,000; (6) local flood protection
at Middlesborough on Yellow Creek, Ky., by means of supplemental
levees, at an estimated cost of $205,200; (c) local flood protection on
the Rough River and tributaries, Kentucky, by means of clearing of
the channel banks of the lower Rough River and channel improve¬
ment in the lower portion of Barnett Creek, a tributary of the Rough
River, all at an estimated cost of $360,000; and {d) the construction
of the Turtle Creek Reservoir on Turtle Creek, Pa., for local flood
protection in the lower Turtle Creek Valley, at an estimated cost of
$2,613,000.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51: These amendments of the Senate
eliminate from the bill the Rowlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat River
and the improvement of the Youghiogheny River Basin which the
House-approved bill placed into the comprehensive plan for flood
control in the Ohio River Basin.
Amendment No. 52: This amendment of the Senate as modified
provides that neither this authorization nor previous authorizations
shall be construed to authorize the construction of the Shoals Dam
on the east fork of the White River, Ind., pending congressional
action subsequent to submission by the Chief of Engineers of the
report on the Wabash River and tributaries now in progress under
authority of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939.
Amendment No. 53: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of the Mount Morris Reservoir on the Genesee River,
N. Y., at an estimated cost of $5,360,000.
12 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Amendment No. 54: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of local protection works at Redmond, Utah, on the
Sevier River, by the construction of a leveed channel, at an estimated
cost of $281,000.
Amendment No. 55: This amendment of the Senate adds a title for
an additional river basin; namely, the Colorado River Basin.
Amendment No. 56: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of the Alamo Reservoir on the Bill Williams River in
Arizona, at an estimated cost of $3,202,000.
Amendment No. 57: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
project on Little Colorado River for local flood protection at Holbrook,
Ariz., by means of levees, at an estimated cost of $258,000.
Amendment No. 58: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of local flood protection on the Pajaro River and tribu¬
taries, California, by means of levees and bank protection works along
the lower Pajaro River and on Carnadero Creek at Gilroy, at an
estimated cost of $511,160.
Amendment No. 59: This amendment of the Senate modifies the
language of the House-approved item, based on the report of the
Board of Engineers for River and Harbors, to reflect the views and
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers which became available
subsequent to the passage of this item by the House.
Amendment No. 60: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of the Folsom Reservoir on the American River in
California, at an estimated cost of $18,474,000. The Folsom project
will control flood peaks on the American River and thereby reduce the
threat to the city of Sacramento resulting from an uncontrolled flood
on the American River synchronized with a major flood crest on the
Sacramento River.
Amendment No. 61: This amendment of the Senate authorizes
improvements in the Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek Stream
Group consisting of the Farmington Reservoir on Littlejohn Creek;
channel enlargements, diversions and dikes; and enlargement of
Hogan Reservoir, all at an estimated cost of $3,868,200.
Amendment No. 62: This amendment of the Senate authorizes
construction of the Conn Creek Reservoir on Conn Creek for flood
control and other purposes in the Napa River Basin in California, at
an estimated cost of $460,000.
Amendment No. 63: This amendment of the Senate authorizes
local flood protection in the Chehalis River at Aberdeen, Hoquiam,
and Cosmopolis, by means of earth levees, concrete sheet piling,
walls, and appurtenant works, at an estimated cost of $669,000.
Amendment No. 64: This amendment of the Senate authorizes the
construction of local flood-protection works at Hanapepe on the
Hanapepe River in the Territory of Hawaii, by means of concrete
flood walls, at an estimated cost of $73,000.
Amendment No. 65: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 8 of the bill passed by the House to section 1 1 of
the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and
80: These amendments of the Senate authorize preliminary exam¬
inations and surveys of certain streams not in the bill passed by the
House.
RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL 13
Amendment No. 67: This amendment of the Senate clarifies an
item for a prelimmary examination and survey.
Amendment No. 81: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 9 of the bill passed by the House to section 12
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 82: This amendment of the Senate as modified
raises to $950,000,000 (increase of $140,000,000) the authorization
provided by the bill, in order that sufficient authority may be avail¬
able to cover the additional improvements included in the bill by
I Senate amendments and it clarifies the intent of this authorization
to show clearly that the amount specified is for work authorized to
be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of War and the
supervision of the Chief of Engineers. The $200,000,000 authoriza¬
tion for War Department projects in the Missouri River Basin is
included in this amomrt. The $200,000,000 authorization for De¬
partment of the Interior projects in the Missouri River Basin is
contained in section 9 and is not included in this amount.
Amendment No. 83: This amendment of the Senate as modified
authorizes the expenditure of $500,000 as an emergency fund under
the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief
of Engineers, for the construction of emergency bank-protection works
to prevent flood damage to highways, bridge approaches, and public
works.
Amendment No. 84: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 10 of the bill passed by the House to section 13
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 85: This amendment of the Senate as modified
provides that in connection with the works authorized to be under-
. taken by the Department of Agriculture land may be acquired only
' with the consent of the States and it lessens the burden on local com¬
munities of removal of large areas from taxation by providing for
payments to local governments in lieu of taxes on the land acquired.
Amendment No. 86: This amendment of the Senate as modified
authorizes works of improvement in the Santa Ynez River watershed
to be undertaken by the Department of Agricidture, at an estimated
cost of $434,000. The increased amount is to cover land acquisition
as recommended by the Department of Agriculture in House Docu¬
ment No. 518.
Amendment No. 87: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from this amendment, thereby restoring the full amount of the
estimated cost ($32,000,000) including cost of land acquisition as
recommended by the Department of Agriculture in House Document
No. 708.
Amendment No. 88: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from this amendment, thereby restoring the full amount of the
estimated cost ($4,221,000) including cost of land acquisition as
recommended by the Department of Agriculture in House Document
No. 892.
Amendment No. 89: This amendment of the Senate, as modified,
authorizes works of improvement in the Yazoo River watershed to be
undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, at an estimated cost of
$21,700,000. The increased amount is to cover land acquisition as
recommended by the Department of Agriculture in House Document
No. 564.
14 RESERVOIRS, LEVEES, AND FLOOD WALLS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
Amendment No. 90: This amendment of the Senate authorizes
works of improvement in the watershed of Buffalo Creek and its
tributaries, Cayuga and Cazenovia Creeks to be undertaken by the
Department of Agriculture, at an estimated cost of $739,000.
Amendment No. 91: The conferees recommend that the Senate
recede from this amendment, thereby restoring the full amount of the
estimated cost ($11,243,000) including cost of land acquisition as
recommended by the Department of Agriculture in House Document
No. 275.
Amendment No. 92: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 11 of the bill passed by the House to section 14
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 93: This amendment of the Senate as modified
changes the reference to a number of a section in the bill passed by the
House to the corresponding number of the section of the bill as passed
by the Senate.
Amendment No. 94: This amendment of the Senate changes the
designation of section 12 of the bill passed by the House to section 15
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Will M. Whittington,
A. Leonard Allen,
A. J. Elliott,
Charles R. Clason,
Carl T. Curtis,
Managers on the Part oj the House.
o
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
time,' and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.
FLOOD CONTROL, PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. WHITTINGTON submitted the
following conference report and state¬
ment on the bill (H. R. 4485) authoriz¬
ing the construction of certain public
works on rivers and harbors for flood
control, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT
The committee of conference on the dis¬
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R.
4485) entitled “An act authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes,” having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows :
Amendment numbered 27: That the Sen¬
ate recede from Its amendment numbered 27.
Amendment numbered 30 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 30.
Amendment numbered 36: That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 36.
Amendment numbered 39 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 39.
Amendment numbered 44 ; That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 44.
Amendments numbered 87 and 88: That
the Senate recede from its amendments
numbered 87 and 88.
Amendment numbered 91 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 91.
Amendments numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7:
That the House recede from its disagree¬
ment to the amendments of the Senate num¬
bered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and agree to the
same.
Amendment numbered 10 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 10 and agree
to the sarne.
Amendments numbered 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17 and 18: That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendments of the Sen¬
ate numbered 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18
and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
and 25: That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendments of the Sen¬
ate numbered 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 and
agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 28 and 29: That
the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendments of the Senate numbered
28 and 29 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 31 and 32: That
the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendments of the Senate numbered 31 and
32 and agree to the. same.
Amendments numbered 34 and 35: That
the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendments of the Senate numbered 34 and
35 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 38 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 38 and agree
to the same.
Amendments numbered 40, 41, 42, and 43:
That the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendments of the Senate numbered
40, 41, 42 and 43 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50 and 51: That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendments of the Sen¬
ate numbered 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 and
agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81:
That the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendments of the Senate numbered
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 84 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 84 and agree to
the same.
Amendment numbered 90: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 90 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 92 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 92 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 94 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of .the Senate numbered 94 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 1: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 1, and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 1, strike
out lines 3 through 11 and on page 2, strike
out lines 1 through 4; and the Senate agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 8: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 8, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 8, line 4,
Insert commas after the word “generally’’’
and after the word “charge”; and the Senate
agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 9: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 9, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 8, line
24, after the period Insert the following:
“Rate schedules shall be drawn having regard
to the recovery (upon the basis of the appli¬
cation of such rate schedules to the capacity
of the electric facilities of the projects) of
the cost of producing and transmitting such
electric energy, Including the amortization
of the capital investment allocated to power
over a reasonable period of years”; on page 9,
line 2, before the word “to” insert the fol¬
lowing: “from funds to be appropriated by
the Congress”; line 2, strike out the word
“and” and insert in lieu thereof the word
“or”; line 2, after the word “acquire” in¬
sert the words “by purchase or other agree¬
ment”; line 8, after the period insert the
words “Ail moneys received from such sales
shaU be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts”, and
the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 11; That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 11, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 13, after
the word “uses” Insert the word "for”; and
the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 19 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 19, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 23, after
the word “prosecuted” insert the words “on
any project authorized in this Act to be
constructed by the War Department”; page
14, line 11, strike out the word “herein” and
after the word “authorized” insert the words
“in this Act for construction by the War
Department”; and the Senate agree to the
same.
Amendment numbered 26: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 26, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 17, after
the word “provided” insert the words “that
the Secretary of War determines that”; line
18, after the word “and” insert the word
“that”; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 33 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 33, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 21,
strike out lines 10 through 25, and on page
22, strike out lines 1 and 2 and insert in
9309
lieu thereof the following: “Paragraph (d)
of the Lower Mississippi River item in sec¬
tion 3 of the Flood Control Act of August
18, 1941, is hereby construed to authorize
reimbursement lor the actual market value
of lands, rights-of-way, and easements, fur¬
nished subsequent to August 18, 1941, for
setbacks of main-line Mississippi River levees,
regardless of state laws limiting payments
to local tax assessment valuations”; and the
Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 37 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 37, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, change the colon
on line 17 to a period and strike out the re¬
mainder of that line and aU of lines 18
and 19.
Amendment numbered 40 1/2 : That the
House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 40 1/2.
and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows: In said Senate amendment, on
line 3, strike out the words “his report of”
and on line 4, strike out the words “Novem¬
ber 16, 1944”, and insert the words “House
Document Numbered 802, Seventy-eighth
Congress, Second Session,”; and the Senate
agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 52 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 52, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 9, strike out
the words “No provision of this or any other
Act” and insert the words “Neither this
authorization nor any previous authoriza¬
tion”; line 11, change the period to a comma
and insert the following “pending submis¬
sion and adoption by Congress of the report
authorized in the Flood Control Act of Au¬
gust 11, 1939.”; and the Senate agree to the
same.
Amendment numbered 82 : That tne House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 82, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 23, strike
out the figures “$959,465,000” and Insert in
lieu thereof the figures “$950,000,000”; line
24, after the word “herein” Insert the words
“by the War Department”; and the Senate
agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 83 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 83, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows;
In said Senate amendment, line 14, before
the word "protection” Insert the word
“bank”; and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 85 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 85, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 17, delete
the period after the word “government” and
add the following; “until the legislature of
the state in which the land lies shall have
consented to the acquisition of lands by
the United States for the purposes within the
scope of this section; provided further that
there shall be paid annually to the county
in which any lands acquired under this sec¬
tion may lie, a sum equal to one per centum
of the purchase price paid for the lands
acquired in that county or, if not acquired
by purchase, one per centum of their valua¬
tion at the time of their acquisition.”; and
the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 86 ; That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 86, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 6, strike out
the figures “$418,000” and insert in lieu
thereof the figures “$434,000”; and the Sen¬
ate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 89 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 89, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
9310
In said Senate amendment, on page 52, line 2,
strike out the figures “$12,500,000" and In¬
sert in lieu thereof the figures “$21,700,000”;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 93 : That the House
recede from Its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 93, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 10, strike
out the figures “12” and insert in lieu thereof
the figures “13”; and the Senate agree to
the same.
Will M. Whittington,
A. Leonard Allen,
A. J. Elliott,
Charles R. Clason,
Carl T. Curtis,
Managens on the Part of the House.
JosiAH W. Bailey,
John H. Overton,
Theo G. Bilbo,
Harold H. Burton,
Owen Brewster,
Hattie W. Caraway,
Bennett Champ Clark,
Hiram W. Johnson,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
statement
Tlie managers on the part of tne House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H. R. 4485) entitled “An
act authorizing the construction of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for flood
control and for other purposes” submit the
following statement in explanation of the
effect of the action agreed upon and recom¬
mended in the accompanying conference re¬
port as to each of such amendments, namely :
amendments
Amendment No, 1 : This amendment of the
Senate as modified declares it to be the Fed¬
eral policy to recognize the interest and
rights of the States in determining the devel¬
opment. of watersheds within their borders
and their interests and rights in water utiliza¬
tion and control. It provides for review of
reports of the Chief of Engineers and of the
Secretary of the Interior by the State or
States affected by the reports, and the com¬
ments of such affected States will become
a part of the report when transmitted to Con¬
gress and published as a House or Senate doc¬
ument. In cases of plans or proposals con¬
cerned with the use or control of waters which
rise in whole or in part west of the ninety-
seventh meridian, the written views and
recommendations of the Secretary of the In¬
terior also become a part of the report of the
Chief of Engineers and the written views and
recommendations of the Secretary of War
become part of the report of the Secretary
of the Interior. The amendment also pro¬
vides that in connection with the operation
and maintenance of projects authorized in
this act. the use of waters of the western
States for navigation shall not conflict with
beneficial consumptive use of the water for
domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation,
mining, or industrial purposes.
Amendment No. 2 : This amendment of the
Senate changes the designation of section 1
of the bill passed by the House to section 2
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 3 : This amendment of the
Senate changes the designation of section 2
of the bill passed by the House to section 3 of
the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 4: This amendment of the
Senate changes the designation of section 3
of the bill passed by the House to section 4
of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, and 7: These
amendments of the Senate insert additional
wording for clarification of the bill.
Amendment No. 8 : This amendment of the
Senate provides that preference in the grant¬
ing of leases for the use of areas suitable for
public park and recreational purposes shall
be given to Federal, State, or local govern¬
mental agencies; that water areas shall be
open to the general public without charge;
and that no use of any area to which section
4 applies shall be permitted which la Incon¬
sistent with the laws for the protection
of fish and game of the State In which such
area Is situated.
Amendment No. 9. This amendment of
the Senate, as modified, authorizes the Secre¬
tary of the Interior to dispose of electric ener¬
gy generated at reservoir projects under con¬
trol of the War Department not •required
in the operation of such projects: authorizes,
from funds to be appropriated by the Con¬
gress, the construction, or acquisition by
purchase or other agreement, of such trans¬
mission lines or related facilities as may be
necessary in order to make the power and
energy generated at such projects available In
wholesale quantities on fair and reasonable
terms and conditions; it establishes a prefer¬
ence in the sale of such power and energy to
public bodies and cooperatives; and it pro¬
vides that all moneys received from such sales
shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States as miscellaneous receipts. It
follows the formula previously established by
law for the Bonneville project that rate
schedules shall be drawn with regard to re¬
covering to the Government the cost of pro¬
ducing and transmitting the electric energy,
including the amortization of the capital
investment allocated to power, over a reason¬
able period of years.
Amendment No. 10: Tills amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of sec¬
tion 4 of the bill passed by the House to sec¬
tion 6 of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 13: These
amendments of the Senate recognize the
established laws and principles pertaining
to ownership of the waters in the Western
States and clarifies the House-approved
language by authorizing contracts for stor¬
age of surplus water at War Department
reservoirs rather than sale of such water.
Amendment No. 12: This amendment of
the Senate protects existing lawful uses of
surplus water available at reservoirs under
the control of the War Department.
Amendment No. 14: This amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of sec¬
tion 5 of the bill passed by the House to sec¬
tion 7 of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 15: This amendment of
the Senate clarifies the bill by substituting
the word “allocated” for “available”.
Amendment No. 16 : This amendment of the
Senate defines and limits the authority of
the Secretary of War with regard to the
reservoirs under the Jurisdiction of the Ten¬
nessee Valley Authority to only the Issuing
of instructions for release of water from the
Tennessee River into the Ohio River at such
times as there is danger from floods on the
lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.
Amendment No. 17: This amendment of
the Senate replaces section 6 of the House
approved bill with certain modified language
substantially as requested by the Secretary
of the Interior and constitutes section 8 of
the Senate approved bill. The Senate lan¬
guage will provide for more effective admin¬
istration in relation to the various technical
features of the Federal reclamation law. It
establishes a procedure for the utilization of
multiple-purpose projects for irrigation pur¬
poses when the Secretary of War determines
upon recommendations of the Secretary of
the Interior that a project operated under
the direction of the Secretary of War may be
utilized for irrigation purposes.
Amendment No. 18 : This amendment of the
Senate is a new section which authorizes the
comprehensive plans for the development of
the Missouri River Basin proposed by the
War Department and the Department of the
Interior, as coordinated by the Joint report
of the Chief of Engineers and the Commis¬
sioner of Reclamation (S. Doc. No. 247 of
December 11
the' 78th Cong.), and It authorizes the ap¬
propriation of $200,000,000 to be expended
by the Corps of Engineers and $200,-
000,000 to be expended by the Secretary of
the Interior for the partial accomplish¬
ment of the works authorized in this sec¬
tion to be undertaken by the Corps of En¬
gineers and by the Secretary of the Interior.
This section replaces the Item in the House-
approved bill, which expanded the approved
general comprehensive plan for flood control
In the Missouri River Basin to include the
work recommended by the Corps of Engi¬
neers and authorized an appropriation of
$200,000,000 for the partial accomplishment
of that work. The Senate has recently ac¬
cepted an amendment to the river and harbor
bill (H. R. 3961) the effect of which is to
provide duplicate authorization for the co¬
ordinated comprehensive plans for the Mis¬
souri River Basin. Such duplicate authority
is undesirable and the Senate conferees have
given assurances that if this conference report
is approved by the House and Senate the
duplicating item will be eliminated from the
river and harbor bill.
Amendment No. 19: This amendment of
the Senate, as modified, changes the desig¬
nation of section 7 of the bill passed by the
House to section 10 of the bill passed by the
Senate; and clarifies the language In the
House- approved bUl to show that the author¬
ity for planning projects and for installa¬
tion of penstocks applies to all projects au¬
thorized in this bill for the War Department
and does not exclude War Department proj¬
ects in the Missouri River Basin contained
In an earlier section of the bill.
Amendment No. 20: This amendment of
the Senate modifies the existing Waterbury,
WrlghtsvUle, and East Barre Dams In the
Winooski River Basin to provide adequate
spillway capacity for present design floods,
at an estimated cost of $2,120,000.
Amendment No. 21: This amendment of
the Senate adds a title for an additional river
basin; namely, the Blackstone River Basin.
Amendment No. 22: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of the
West Hill Reservoir on the West River In
Massachusetts for flood control and other
purposes, at an estimated cost of $1,070,000.
Amendment No. 23 : This amendment of
the Senate authorizes a project on the Black-
stone River for local flood protection at Wor¬
cester, Mass., by means of a diversion conduit
and channel, at an estimated cost of
$2,232,000.
Amendment No. 24: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes a project on the Black-
stone River for local flood protection at
Woonsocket, R. I., by means of channel Im¬
provement, at an estimated cost of $803,000.
Amendment No. 25: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the project for local
flood protection on the Seekonk River at
Pawtucket, R. I., by means of levees for the
protection of the city and adjacent areas, at
an estimated cost of $82,000.
Amendment No. 26: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the Army engineers to
construct eight reservoirs in the West River
Basin in Vermont instead of the flood-control
reservoir authorized by existing law at the
Wllliamsville site in the towns of Dummers-
ton or Newfane, in accordance with an alter¬
native plan submitted by the Vermont State
Water Conservation Board as that plan may
be modified by agreement between the board
and the Secretary of War and the Chief of
Engineers; provided that the total cost of the
alternate plan as determined by the Secre¬
tary of War does not exceed the sum of $11.-
000,000, and that 75 percent of the flood con¬
trol can be secured from that plan which
may be secured from the Williamsville Reser¬
voir. In the event that the eight-reservoir
plan does not satisfy the above requirements,
the Army engineers are authorized to pro¬
ceed with the construction of the Williams-
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
ville project for flood control. The amend¬
ment also requires a further report and sub¬
sequent authorization by Congress before the
projects at Cambridgeport, Ludlow, South
Tunbridge, and Gaysville can be built. And
It prohibits the construction of a dam or
reservoir at the Sugar Hill site on the Am-
monoosuc River under previous authority or
'that contained in this bill. It is understood
that an alternate site is under study and if
found feasible authority exists for initiation
of such project.
Amendment No. 27: The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment which would have required a
further report and subsequent authorization
prior to the initiation of the House-approved
project for the Thomaston Reservoir on the
Naugatuck River for flood control in the
Housatonic River Basin, Conn., at an esti¬
mated cost of $5,151,000. If further study
discloses that the project should be aban¬
doned or modified extensively the Chief of
Engineers will withhold initiation of con¬
struction.
Amendment No. 28: This amendment of
the Senate eliminates the Raystown Reser¬
voir on the Raystown branch of the Juniata
River, Pa., for flood control and other pur¬
poses, for which the House-approved bill
authorized $2,000,000, for the initiation and
partial accomplishment.
Amendment No. 29: This amendment of
the Senate approves a general plan for the
long range comprehensive development of
the Roanoke River Basin for flood control and
other purposes, and authorizes the construc¬
tion of the Buggs Island Reservoir on the
Roanoke River in Virginia and North Caro¬
lina and the Philpott Reservoir on the Smith
River in Virginia, at an estimated cost of
$36,140,000.
Amendment No. 30: The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby eliminating the Yadkin-
Pee Dee project from the bill. It is expected
that a restudy of the basin may be author¬
ized by committee resolutions at a later date.
Amendment No. 31 : This amendment of
the Senate authorizes a project for the Edisto
River Basin in South Carolina, consisting of
channel and bank clearing along 43 miles of
Edisto River and its north and south forks,
at an estimated cost of $139,000.
Amendment No. 32: This amendment of
the Senate approves the general plan for
the long-range comprehensive development
of the Savannah River Basin for flood con¬
trol and other purposes and authorizes the
construction of the Clark Hill Reservoir on
the Savannah River in South Carolina and
Georgia, at an estimated cost of $35,300,000.
The rivers and harbors bill, H. R. 3961, as
passed by the House contains an item for
the Savannah River, the effect of which is to
provide duplicate authorization for the Clark
Hill Reservoir project. Such duplicate au¬
thority is undesirable and the Senate con¬
ferees have given assurances that if this con¬
ference report is approved by the House
and Senate the duplicating item will be elim¬
inated from the river and harbor bill.
Amendment No. 33: Under the laws of the
State of Louisiana and existing Federal laws,
local Interests in acquiring easements and
levee rights-of-way may not pay more than
the assessed value of the property, and the
assessed value is usually lower than the
actual market value. This amendment of
the Senate establishes a construction of ex¬
isting law to allow reimbursements for levee
rights-of-way at actual market value regard¬
less of State laws, limiting payments to local
tax assessment valuations, thereby placing
Louisiana and other States on the same basis
for reimbursement.
Amendment No. 34. This amendment of
the Senate authorizes local flood control
and bank protection In the vicinity of
Shreveport, La., at an estimated cost of
$3,000,000.
Amendment No. 35: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the Blakely Mountain
Dam and Reservoir on the Ouchita River for
flood control and other purposes, at an esti¬
mated cost of $11,080,000.
Amendment No. 36: The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby eliminating the au¬
thority for modifying the project to include
reservoirs upstream from Trinidad. The con¬
ferees agree that a modification of this mag¬
nitude should be undertaken only after full
report by the Chief of Engineers and au¬
thorization by Congress. The appropriate
Investigation and report to Congress are now
in progress.
Amendment No. 37: This amendment of
the Senate as modified incorporates a project
for the construction of the Red Rock Dam
on the Des Moines River for fiood control and
other purposes into the approved general
comprehensive plan for fiood control in the’
upper Mississippi River Basin. The esti¬
mated cost of the Red Rock Dam and Reser¬
voir on the Des Moines River is $15,000,000.
The modification agreed to by the conferees
removes the rigid restriction on elevation of
spillway crest. The Chief of Engineers will,
within existing authority, make any modifica¬
tions in the design needed to protect exist¬
ing sewers and public facilities.
Amendment No. 38: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes a project for local
flood protection on the Des Moines River at
tlie city of Des Moines, Iowa, by means of
levees, at an estimated cost of $270,000.
Amendment No. 39: The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby restoring the estimated
cost of the project as contained in the bill
passed by the House.
Amendment No. 40 ■ This amendment of
the Senate as modified authorizes five small
detention reservoirs for local flood control on
Farm Creek, Ill., and for the protection of
East Peoria, in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers, at an
estimated cost of $3,017,900.
Amendment No. 40: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of
the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne
River for flood control and other purposes at
an estimated cost of $810,000.
' Amendment No. 41 : This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of
one reservoir on the Pembina River and one
on the Tongue River for flood control and
other purposes in the Pembina River Basin in
North Dakota, at an estimated cost of
$333,800.
Amendment No. 42: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of a
reservoir on the south branch of Park River
for flood control and other purposes, at an
estimated cost of $358,610.
, Amendment No. 43: This amendment of
the Senate eliminates the language in the
House-approved bill for the Missouri River
Basin, which has been superseded by Senate
amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 44: The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby eliminating the lan¬
guage which would have removed the Tuttle
Creek project from the comprehensive plan
for the Missouri River Basin. The Chief of
Engineers is now making an Investigation
of possible alternate projects and if feasible
will recommend them as substitutes for Tut¬
tle Creek. The conferees, however, in elimi¬
nating the amendment recognize the neces¬
sity for adequate reservoir control in the
plan for protecting the Kansas Citys and
leave the way open for selection of Tuttle
Creek Reservoir if alternates are found to be
Infeasible.
Amendment No. 45: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes a project for local flood
protection on the Chariton River, Mo., con¬
sisting of channel and levee improvements,
at an estimated cost of $1,610,300.
9311
Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, and 49 : These
amendments of the Senate expand the ap¬
proved general comprehensive plan for flood
control in the Ohio River Basin adopted by
the act approved June 28, 1938, as modified
by the act approved August 18, 1941, to in¬
clude: (a) Improvement in the Kentucky
River Basin, consisting of the construction
of a cut-off at the north fork of Kentucky
River at Jackson and local flood protection
at that community, and the modification of
the plan for the Jessamine Creek, and Boone-
ville projects to Include the development of
hydroelectric power at these sites, all at an
estimated cost of $23,822,000; (b) local flood
protection at Middlesborough on Yellow
Creek, Ky., by means of supplemental levees,
at an estimated cost of $205,200; (c) local
flood protection on the Rough River and trib¬
utaries, Kentucky, by means of clearing of
the channel banks of the lower Rough River
and channel Improvement in the lower por¬
tion of Barnett Creek, a tributary of the
Rough River, all at an estimated cost of
$360,000; and (d) the construction of the
Turtle Creek Reservoir on Turtle Creek, Pa.,
for local flood protection in the lower Turtle
Creek Valley, at an estimated cost of $2,-
613,000.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 : These amend¬
ments of the Senate eliminate from the bill
the Rowlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat River
and the improvement of the Youghiogheny
River Basin which the House-approved bill
placed into the comprehensive plan for flood
control in the Ohio River Basin.
Amendment No. 52: This amendment of
the Senate, as modified, provides that neither
this authorization nor previous authoriza¬
tions shall be construed to authorize the
construction of the Shoals Dam on the east
fork of the White River, Indiana, pending
congressional action subsequent to submis¬
sion by the Chief of Engineers of the report
on the Wabash River and tributaries now in
progress under authority of the Flood Control
Act of August 11, 1939.
Amendment No. 53: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of the
Mount Morris Reservoir, on the Genesee
River, N. Y., at an estimated cost of $5,360,000.
• Amendment No. 54: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of
local protection works at Redmond, Utah, on
the Sevier River, by the construction of a
leveed channel, at an estimated cost of
$281,000.
Amendment No. 55: This amendment of
the Senate adds a title for an additional river
basin, namely, the Colorado River Basin.
Amendment No. 56: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of the
Alamo Reservoir on the Bill Williams River
in Arizona, at an estimated cost of $3,202,000.
Amendment No. 57: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the project on Little
Colorado River for local flood protection at
Holbrook, Ariz., by means of levees, at an
estimated cost of $258,000.
Amendment No. 58: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of
local flood protection on the Pajaro River and
tributaries, California, by means of levees
and bank protection works along the lower
Pajaro River and on Carnadero Creek at Gil¬
roy, at an estimated cost of $511,160.
Amendment No. 59: This amendment of
the Senate modifies the language of the
House-approved item, based on the report of
the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har¬
bors, to reflect the views and recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers which became
available subsequent to the passage of this
item by the House.
Amendment No. 60: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of the
Folsom Reservoir on the American River in
California, at an estimated cost of $18,474,000.
The Folsom project will control flood peaks
on the American River and thereby reduce
December 11
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
9312
the threat to the city of Sacramento result¬
ing from an uncontrolled flood on the Ameri¬
can River synchronized with a major flood
crest on the Sacramento River.
Amendment No. 61: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes improvements in the
Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek stream
group consisting of the Farmington Reservoir
on Littlejohn Creek; channel enlargements,
diversions and dikes; and enlargement of Ho¬
gan Reservoir, all at an estimated cost of
$3,868,200.
Amendment No. 62: Tliis amendment of
the Senate authorizes construction of the
Conn Creek Reservoir on Conn Creek for flood
control and other purposes in the Napa River
Basin in California, at an estimated cost of
$460,000.
Amendment No. 63: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes local flood protection
in the Chehalls River at Aberdeen, Hoqulam,
and Cosmopolis, by means of earth levees,
concrete sheet piling, walls, and appurtenant
works, at an estimated cost of $669,000.
Amendment No. 64: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes the construction of
local flood protection works at Hanapepe on
the Hanapepe River in the Territory of
Hawaii, by means of concrete flood walls, at
an estimated cost of $73,000.
Amendment No. 66: This amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of sec¬
tion 8 of the bill passed by the House to sec¬
tion 11 of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80: These amend¬
ments of the Senate authorize preliminary
examinations and surveys of certain streams
not in the bill passed by the House.
Amendment No. 67: This amendment of
the Senate clarlfles an item for a preliminary
examination and survey.
Amendment No. 81: This amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of sec¬
tion 9 of the bill passed by the House to
section 12 of the bill passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 82: This amendment of
the Senate as modified raises to $960,000,000
(Increase of $140,000,000) the authorization
provided by the bill, in order that suiBcient
authority may be available to cover the addi¬
tional Improvements included in the bill by
Senate amendments and it clarlfles the in¬
tent of this authorization to show clearly
that the amount specified is for work au¬
thorized to be prosecuted under the direction
of the Secretary of War and the supervision
of the Chief of Engineers. The $200,000,000
authorization for War Department projects in
the Missouri River Basin is Included in this
amount. The $200,000,000 authorization for
Department of the Interior projects in the
Missouri River Basin is contained in section
9 and is not Included in this amount.
Amendment No. 83: This amendment of
the Senate as modified authorizes the ex¬
penditure of $500,000 as an emergency fund
under the direction of the Secretary of War
and the supervision of the Chief of En¬
gineers. for the construction of emergency
bank-protection works to prevent flood dam¬
age to highways, bridge approaches, and
public works.
Amendment No. 84; This amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of sec¬
tion 10 of the bill passed by the House
to section 13 of the bill passed by the Sen¬
ate.
Amendment No. 85; This amendment of
the Senate as modified provides that in con¬
nection with the works authorized to be
undertaken by the Department of Agriculture
land may be acquired only with the consent
of the States and it lessens the burden on
local communities of removal of large areas
from taxation by providing for payments
to local governments in lieu of taxes on
the land acquired.
Amendment No. 86; This amendment of
the Senate as modified authorizes works of
improvement in the Santa Ynez River water¬
shed to be undertaken by the Department of
Agriculture, at an estimated cost of $434,000.
The Increased amount is to cover land acqui¬
sition as recommended by the Department
of Agriculture in House Document No. 518.
Amendment No. 87 : The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby restoring the full
amount of the estimated cost ($32,000,000)
Including cost of land acquisition as recom¬
mended by the Department of Agriculture
in House Document No. 708.
Amendment No. 88: The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby restoring the full
amount of the estimated cost ($4,221,000)
Including cost of land acquisition as recom¬
mended by the Department of Agriculture
in House Document No. 892.
Amendment No. 89: This amendment of
the Senate, as modified, authorizes works
of improvement in the Yazoo River water¬
shed to be undertaken by the Department
of Agriculture, at an estimated cost of $21,-
700,000. The Increased amount is to cover
land acquisition as recommended by the De¬
partment of Agriculture in House Document
No. 564.
Amendment No. 90: This amendment of
the Senate authorizes works of improvement
in the watershed of Buffalo Creek and its
tributaries, Cayuga and Cazenovia Creeks to
be undertaken by the Department of Agri¬
culture, at an estimated cost of $739,000.
Amendment No. 91; The conferees recom¬
mend that the Senate recede from this
amendment, thereby restoring the full
amount of the estimated cost ($11,234,000)
including cost of land acquisition as recom¬
mended by the Department of Agriculture in
House Document No. 275.
Amendment No. 92; This amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of sec¬
tion 11 of the bill passed by the House to
section 14 of the blU passed by the Senate.
Amendment No. 93: This amendment of
the Senate as modified changes the refer¬
ence to a number of a section in the bill
passed by the House to the corresponding
number of the section of the bill as passed
by the Senate.
Amendment No. 94: This amendment of
the Senate changes the designation of section
12 of the bill passed by the House to section
15 of the bill passed by the Senate.
Will M. Whittington,
A. Leonard Allen,
A. J. Elliott,
Charles R. Clason,
Carl T. Curtis,
Managers on the part of the House.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will call
the next bill on the Consent Calendar.
EXCHANGE OP LANDS, COLORADO
The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5409)
for the exchange of lands adjacent to
the Pike National Forest, in Colorado.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the provisions of
the act of March 20, 1922 (42 Stat. L. 465;
U. S. C., title 16, sec. 485), entitled “An act
to consolidate national forest lands.” and the
provisions of the act of February 28, 1925
(43 Stat. L. 1090; U. S. C., title 16, sec. 486),
entitled “An act to amend an act entitled
‘An act to consolidate national forest lands’,”
and acts amendatory thereto, are hereby ex¬
tended to include any suitable offered lands
within township 11 south, range 69 west,
sixth principal meridian, lying within the
State of Colorado, adjacent to the Pike Na¬
tional Forest. Lands conveyed to the United
States under this act shall, upon acceptance
of title, become parts of the national forest
nearest to which they are situated, and shall
thereafter be subject to the laws, rules, and
regulations applicable to said national forest.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon¬
sider was laid on the table.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 502 (a) OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ORGANIC ACT OP 1944
The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5566)
to amend section 502 (a) of the Depart¬
ment of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the present consideration of the bill?
Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, in view of
the fact that this bill would operate to
cause the United States Treasury to sur¬
render certain annual Income, I suggest
that a member of the committee explain
the bill.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of New York. I yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. RANKIN. I shall be glad to ex¬
plain it.
This bill was introduced by the gentle¬
man from Tennessee [Mr. McCord] who
has gone home to make arrangements for
entering upon his duties as Governor of
the State of Tennessee. Mr. McCord
consulted me about this matter and we
went over it carefully. We also went over
it with a representative of the Rural Elec¬
trification Administration. The situa¬
tion is this: When rural electrification
began in the Tennessee Valley area, I or¬
ganized the first cooperative power asso¬
ciations in my own district. The rest of
the area followed our example and the
Tennessee Valley Authority made loans
to those associations to build rural power
lines. Later, the R. E. A. was created,
and all future loans were made through
that agency. Recently a law was passed
reducing the interest rate on those loans
to 2 percent, and this bill simply permits
those associations that have been bor¬
rowing through the Tennessee Valley
Authority to switch those loans to the
R. E. A. and get the T. V. A. out of the
loaning business.
Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of New York. I yield to the
gentlem.an from Tennessee.
Mr. JENNINGS. The members of this
association are, for the most part, farm¬
ers, are they not?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; practically all of
them.
Mr. JENNINGS. And these associa¬
tions carry the electricity out to the
farms? And this bill puts these cooper¬
ative associations on the same interest
rate as is enjoyed by all others?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; and this bill is to
allow the loans to be refunded out of
what is known as the carry-over fund.
It will not hamper the extension of rural
electrification in any way.
We took this matter before the Com¬
mittee on Agriculture and had the Solici¬
tor of the Rural Electrification Adminis¬
tration present. He assured the com¬
mittee that it could be taken care of
out of what they call the carry-over
funds. that are now in their hands be¬
cause of the fact that we do not have the
* ^ OITICE OF BUDGET JiSF El MCE
Legislative Reports and I'Service Section
:7.8fiH-2nd»i Eo.iyU
DIG-EST OF PROCEEDING'S OF CONGRESS OF INTEREST TO THE DEPARTIVENT OF AGRICULTURE
(issued December I3, 19^^> actions of Tuesday, Deceraoer 12, 1944)
(For staff of the Department only)
CONTENTS
. 6, l4
Aircraft . . I9
Bureaucracy . I3
Clothing, farm . l^^
Gorapensat ion . I6'
Crop insurance . 5
Education . 14
Executive authority. . . .17
Elec tr if i cat ion . 7, l4
F.S.A. ... . . 6,l4
Farm credit. . 4-
Farm Jirograci. . .l4
Federal land hanks. ..... 4
Fertilizers . . . . .l4
Flood control . . 2
Forestry . IQ
Loans, farm . b
Machinery,- farm . Im¬
parity. ..... V.- w . l4
Personnel . . . ; 1. .18
Property disposition _ .19
Reclamation . 3
Rivers and harbors , hill . .9
Road authorization hill..!
Seed-fepd. logins . 6
Small business . 11
Soil co'nserv-ation. . l4
St, Lawrence waterv/av. . . 9
T.y.A . 7. . . . 7
Taxation . 20
Transport at i 5n . 9,19
Travel g
Water pollution . 12
, . HOUSE
1. ' ROAD AUTHORIZATIONS BILL, Both Houses agreed to the conference report on this
hill, S. 2105 (pp. 9^94-9* 9412-4) , (For hill's provisions see Digests l48,
161, and 173*) This hill vdll now he sent to the President.
2. FLOOD CONTROL. Both Houses agreed to the conference report on H.R.4485, tije
; Whittington flood-control hill (pp. 9399-409, 94l4-9) • (For provisions of the
conference repon see Digest 173*) This hill will now he sent to the President.
3.
4.
reclamation. Passed with an amendment S. 1782, to extend the time in which
endatory contracts may he made under the Reclamation Project Act of 1939
(ppV.^428-9) • Agreed to Rep, Murdock's (atIz.) amendment to strike out the
sect i oh providing that after retirement of debts due to a, project all net
power revenues shall he covered into the reclamation fund (p. 9429) .
FARM CREDIT. During his speech, "Progress of the War," Rep. Burdick, N.Dak.,
discussed the efforts of Government to "revive business" and extend credit to
farmers, criticized administration policies in connection with RFC and the
Federal land hanks, and stated, "The price of farm commodities, through sup¬
port prices, loans, and soil-f-inprovement payments have reached a more just po¬
sition, enabling the producer of food to protect his investment" (p. 9432).
SENATE
4* CROP INSURANCE. Sen. Hill, Ala., announced that H. -E. 4911, the crop- insurance
hill will he the pending husines^ for today, Dec, 13 (pp* 9394-9409).
6. FARM LOANS, Concurred in the- House amendment to S. l6SS, authorizing the
Secretary of Agriculture to adjust, compromise, or cancel certain indebtedness
of farmers for" seed-feed loans, FSA loans, excessive AAA payments, etc. (p.939^*
This hill will now .he sent to the President.
7. ELECTRIFICATION, Agriculture and Forestry Committee reported without amend¬
ment H. R, -5^66, to authorize REA to make loans to cooperative associations
to repay or refinance loans from TVA (p, 9394).
8, TRAVEL. Expenditures in the Executive Departments Committee reported without
amendment H, R, 4547, to permit compensation, on a mileage basis, of civilian
officers or employees for the use of privately owned airplanes while traveling
on official husiness (p. 939'+)*
9. -RIVERS AITE HAEBORS BILL, Continued dehate on this hill, H. R. 39^1 ("op. 9352-94).
Rejected, 25-56, Sen. Aiken's amendment providing for the post-iArar development
of the 5t. Lav;rence waterway (p. 9332).
10. FORESTRY. Received this Department's renort on forest roads and trails for the
fiscal year 1944. To Post Offices and Post Roads Committee, (p. 9350-) House
received this report on Decemher. 11.
11. SMALL BUSINESS, Received WPB's 15th progress report for Oct. 1-Nov. 30» 19^^ on
the operations of the Smaller War Plants Corporation, To Banking and Currency
Committee, (p. 9350*)
ITMS IN THE APPENDIX
12. WATER POLLUTION. Rep. Spence, Ky. , inserted a Cincinnati Enpuirer editorial on
water-pollution control in.- the Ohio River (p-:). A5059“60).
13. BUREAUCRACY. Reip. Cravens, Ark., inserted a ,N‘ew York Times article urging a
study of the Australian bureaucratic crisi.s with a view to the better under¬
standing of U. S. problems (pp. A5072-3).,
14. FARM PROG-RAM, Rep. LeCompte, Iowa, inserted resolutions of the Wayne County,
Iowa, Farm Bureau favoring rural electrification, rural schools, construction
of f arm-to-market roads, the .AAA, program, maintenance of Federal loan associa¬
tions and FSA to render financial ;iaid to farmers, regulations on fertilizers,
manufacture of farm machinery, erosion control, and improved farm-practices
urogram by SCS, family-sized farms, and uarity T^rices for farm' uroducts
(pu. A50 74-5^7-- . ■ ”
15. FARM CLOTHING-. Extension of - remarks of Rep. Scrivner, Nans., including a letter
regarding the sliortage of'''farm work clothing and gloves (p. A5079).
BILLS INTRODUCED
16. GOMPEITSATION. By Rpp. Vinson, G-a. , H. R. 56l7> Vo increase salaries as follows:
President, from $75>000 to $100,000; Vice President, Speaker of the House, and'
cabinet members, 'from $15>000 to $25,000; members of Congress, from $10,000 to
$15,000. To Judiciary Committee. (p. 9436.) Remarks of author (up. 9420-2).
17. EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. By Sen, McCarran, Nev., S. Res. 352, to extend until not
later than^,the end of the 79Vh Cong, the date for submission of the report
called fo^ by S. Res. 252, 73th Cong., relating to a study into the legal and
constitutional authority for the issuance of Executive orders of 'the President
•and of •departmental regulations. To Audit-Control Committee. (p. 9351.)
IS, EETII4EMENT, By Mrs. Norton, N. J., H. R, 5616, to extend the existing cpn-
trj<butory system of retirement benefits to elective officers of the U. S., and
he'ads of executive departments. To Civil Service Committee. (p. 9^36.)
Remarks of author (up. 9430“l).
r o —
ir44 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
erably in connection with the 10 percent
on railroad crossings, but I believe that
the compromise is a very fair one, and I
have no complaint to make against it.
However, I wish to make a prediction
to those who have referred to this bill
as a public works bill. I absolve the Sen¬
ator fij'om Arizona [Mr. Hayden] of ever
having called it a public-works bill, but
I predict that not 20 percent of the funds
provided for municipalities will ever give
anyone ^^ny employment without some
provision pf this kind, because the money
will all be used for the acquisition of
I’ights-of-way.
Mr. REED, Mr. President, I will make
the Senator from Georgia two promises :
In the first place, I have always held the
view that separation of grade crossings
was primarily lor the safety of the pub¬
lic using the highways. We have never'
had any determination of thq costs as
between the railroads and ariy public
agency, such as the State or county.
This is the first time we have had an
opportunity to determine the costs. If
we find that a share greater than 10 per¬
cent belongs to the railroads — and I
think we may so find — ^I will join the Sen¬
ator from Georgia at any time in raising
the percentage required from the partici¬
pating railroads to whatever is found to
be equitable.
In connection with the right-of-way
matter, if we find from experience that
in the urban centers money is being
wasted in the purchase of rights-of-way,
I will join the Senator from Georgia in
amending the law at some time in the
future.
Mr. RUSSELL. The statement of the
Senator from Kansas is most gratifying.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc¬
Clellan in the chair) . The question is
on agreeing to the conference report on
Senate bill 2105.
•Vhe report was agreed to.
FLO(3D-CONTROL PROJECTS—
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. OVERTON submitted the follow¬
ing report:
The committee of conference on the dis¬
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R.
4485) entitled "An act authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and for other
purposes,” having met. after full and free
conference^ have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
Amendment numbered 27: That the Sen¬
ate recede from its amendment numbered 27.
Amendment numbered 30 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 30.
Amendment numbered 36 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 36.
Amendment numbered 39 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 39.
Amendment numbered 44 : That the Senate
recede from its amendment numbered 44.
Amendments numbered 87 and 88: That
the Senate recede from its amendments num¬
bered 87 and 88.
Amendment numbered 91: That the Senate
recede from its amendment numberedyfll.
Amendments numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7:
That the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendments of the Senate numbered
2, 3, 4. 5, 6, and 7 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 10: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 10 and agree
to the same, .
Amendments numbered 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, and 18: That the House recede from its
disagreement to tlie amendments of the Sen¬
ate numbered 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
and 25: That the House recede from its dis¬
agreement to the amendments of the Senate
numbered 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 and agree
to the same.
Amendments numbered 28 aqd 29: That
the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendments of the Senate numbered
28 and 29 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 31 and 32: That
the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendments of the Senate numbered
31 and 32 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 34 and 35: That
^ the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendments of the Senate numbered
34 and 35 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 38 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 38 and agree
to the same.
Amendments numbered' 40, 41, 42, and 43:
That the House recede from its disagree¬
ment to the amendments of the Senate
numbered 40, 41, 42, and 43 and agree to
the same.
Amendments numbered 45, 46. 47, 48, 49,
50, and 51 : That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendments of the
Senate numbered 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and
51 and agree to the same.
Amendments numbered 53, 54, 55, 56. 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66. 67. 68, 69, 70,
71, 72, 73, 74, 75. 76. 77, 78, 79. 80, and 81:
That the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendments of the Senate numbered
53, 54, 55. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62. 63, 64, 65.
66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76. 77, 78,
79, 80, and 81 and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 84 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 84 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 90 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 90 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 92 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 92 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 94: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 94 and agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 1 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 1, and agree to
the same with an amendment as follows : In
said Senate amendment, on page 1, strike out
lines 3 through 11 and on page 2, strike out
lines 1 through 4; and the Senate agree to
the same.
Amendment numbered 8: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 8, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 8, line
4, insert commas after the word “generally”
and after the word “charge”; and the Sen¬
ate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 9: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 9, and agree to
the same with amendments, as follows: In
said Senate amendment, on page 8, line 24,
after the period Insert the following: “Rate
schedules shall be drawn having regard to
the recovery (upon the basis of the applica¬
tion of such rate schedules to the capacity
of the electric facilities of the projects) of the
cost of producing and transmitting such
electric energy, including the amortization of
the capital investment allocated to power
over a reasonable period of years”: on page
9, line 2, before the word “to” Insert the fol¬
lowing: “from funds to be appropriated by
9399
the Congress”; line 2, strike out the word
“and” and Insert in lieu thereof the word
“or”; line 2, after the word “acquire” Insert
the words “by purchase or other agreement”;
line 8, after the period Insert the words “All
moneys received from such sales shall be de¬
posited 'in the Treasury of the United States
as miscellaneous receipts”; and the Senate
agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 11: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 11, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 13, after the
word “uses” insert the word “for”; and the
Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 19 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 19, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows;
In said Senate amendment, line 23, after the
word “prosecuted” insert the words “on any
project authorized in this Act to be con¬
structed by the War Department”; page 14,
line 11, strike out the word “herein” and
after the word “authorized” insert the words
“in this Act for construction by the War
Department”; and the Senate agree to the
same.
. Amendment numbered 26 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 26, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows : In
said Senate amendment, line 17, after the
word “provided” insert the words “that the
Secretary of War determines that”; line 18,
after the word “and” insert the word “that”;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 33 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 33, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows :
In said Senate amendment, on page 21, strike
out lines 10 through 25, and on page 22, strike
out lines 1 and 2 and insert in lieu thereof
the following: “Paragraph (d) of the Lower
Mississippi River item in section 3 of the
Flood control Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby
construed to authorize reimbursement for
the actual market value of lands, rights-of-
way, and easements, furnished subsequent
to Augd.st 18, 1941, for set-backs of main-line
Mississippi River levees, regardless of Stale
laws limiting payments to local tax assess¬
ment valuations”; and the Senate agree to the
same.
Amendment numbered 37 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 37, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, change the colon
on line 17 to a period and strike out the re¬
mainder of that line and all of lines 18 and 19.
Amendment numbered 40 That the
House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 401/2,
and agree to the same with an amendment,
as follows: In said Senate amendment, on
line 3, strike out the words “his report of”
and on line 4, strike out the words “November
16, 1944”, and Insert the words “House Docu¬
ment Numbered 802, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, Second Session,”; and the Senate agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 52: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 52, and agree
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 9, strike
out the words “No provision of this or any
other Act” and insert the words “Neither
this authorization nor any previous author¬
ization”; line 11, change the period to a
comma and insert the following “pending
submission and adoption by Congress of the
report authorized in the Flood Control Act
of August 11, 1939.”
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 82: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 82, and agree
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE December 12
9400
to the same with amendments, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 23, strike
out the figures “$959,465,000” and Insert in
lieu thereof the figures $950,000,000; line 24
after the word "herein” insert the words “by
the War Department”: and the Senate agree
to the same.
Amendment numbered 83 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 83, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 14, before
the word “protection” insert the word “bank”;
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 85: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 85, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, line 17, delete
the period after the word “government” and
add the following: “until the legislature of
the state in which the land lies shall have
consented to the acquisition of lands by the
United States for the purposes within the
scope of this section: Provided further. That
:<there shall be paid annually to the county
in which any lands acquired under this sec¬
tion may lie, a sum equal to one per centum
of the purchase price paid for the lands ac¬
quired in that county or, if not acquired by
purchase, one per centum of their valuation
at the time of their acquisition.”
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 86 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 86, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as fol¬
lows: In said Senate amendment, line 6,
strike out the figures “$418,000” and Insert
in lieu thereof the figures “$434,000”; and the
Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 89 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 89, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as follows:
In said Senate amendment, on page 52, line
2, strike out the figures “$12,500,000” and
insert in lieu thereof the figures “$21,700,000";
and the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 93 : That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend¬
ment of the Senate numbered 93, and agree
to the same with an amendment, as fol¬
lows: In said Senate amendment, line 10,
strike out the figures “12” and insert in lieu
thereof the figures “13”; and the Senate agree
to the same.
JosiAH W. Bailey,
John H. Overton,
Theo. G. Bilbo,
Harold H. Burton,
Ov/EN Brewster,
Hattie W. Caraway,
Bennett Champ Clark,
Hiram W. Johnson,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
Will M. Whittington,
A. Leonard Allen,
A. J. Elliott,
Charles R. Clason,
Carl T. Curtis,
Managers on the part of the House.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, may I ask
If it is the intention to take up this
conference report tonight?
Mr. OVERTON. It is.
Mr. AIKEN. I ask the Senator from
Louisiana if he is willing to let this matter
go over until tomorrow. The amendment
in which I am interested is one which
would provide for construction in my
valley in Vermont. I should like to have
an opportunity to study it and let the
Senate know what it is doing before it
acts upon it.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, let me
say to the Senator from Vermont that we
adopted exactly the amendment which
the distinguished Senator from Vermont
[Mr. Austin] offered.
Mr. AIKEN. There were a few words
added.
Mr. OVERTON. Nothing was added
except a clarifying amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. I do not understand that
it is a clarifying amendment.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I shall
not be present tomorrow, and I shall in¬
sist upon proceeding with the considera¬
tion of the conference report tonight. I
shall be unavoidably detained from the
Senate tomorrow. We can take it up and
thresh it out this evening. I should like
to dispose of the conference report. It
would be very inconvenient for me to be
present tomorrow.
Mr. AIKEN. How does the Senator in¬
terpret that amendment?
Mr. OVERTON. Let me state exactly
what the amendment is.
The amendment wliich was offered in
the Senate and agreed to by the Senate
is word for word what was agreed to in
conference, except that the words “that
the Secretary of War determines that”
have been inserted, so as to make the
amendment provide that the alternate
plan will be carried into execution upon
an agreement between the Board, the
Secretary of War, and the Chief of Engi¬
neers,' provided that the Secretary of
War determines that the total costs of
the alternate plan shall not exceed the
sum of $11,000,000. As I understand,
the objection of the Senator is that he
does not want the Secretary of War to
make that determination.
Mr. AIKEN. No; I should like to lave
the Senator’s interpretation of what the
amendment means. Will he let me say
what I have been told it means?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield to the Senator
from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, this
amendment, as adopted by the Senate,
authorized, and I believe directed, the
War Department to adopt the States’ al¬
ternative plan of eight dams in place
of one large dam, which was in the pro¬
gram for the West River Valley.
As I recall, it was further provided —
I do not have the bill, the amendment,
or the conference report before me — that
the dams in the States’ alternate plan
should impound not less than 75 per¬
cent as much water as the one large dam
which was originally proposed by the
War Department, and that the costs
should not exceed the sum of $11,000,000.
The amendment reads:
Provided, That the Secretary of War de¬
termines that the total costs of the alternate
plan shall not exceed the sum of $11,000,000.
I have been told by Mr. Clason, one of
the House conferees, that if the Secretary
of War finds that the cost of the eight
alternate dams exceeds the sum of $11,-
000,000, then he is authorized to go back
to the original big dam, which would de¬
stroy this valley. It might easily happen
that we would have inflation to a degree
of 10 or 15 percent, so that the Secretary
of War might And that the cost of the
dams would exceed $11,000,000. Then if
what I am told is correct, the amend¬
ment passed by the Senate would be
meaningle.ss; it would have no effect;
and ttie big dam could be built, destroying
the valley, which the Senate emphati¬
cally stated it did not wish to do, and
which the New England Senators and
Representative Clason agreed should not
be done.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, it is
all very simple. Everything the Senator
sa5's is contained in the amendment
adopted by the Senate. That amendment
provided that the alternate plan should
go into effect, provided the work could be
done at a cost not to exceed $11,000,000.
Who is to make that determination? The
House conferees, including a representa¬
tive from one of the New England States,
stated that someone must make the de¬
termination. So it was suggested that the
Secretary of War make the determina¬
tion. Certainly it could not be left in the
air. The amendment which was sug¬
gested by both Senators from Vermont
and the Senators from Massachusetts and
Connecticut, declared emphatically that
the alternate plan of reservoirs on the
tributaries of the West River should go
into effect and be executed if the cost
were not in excess of $11,000,000. The
only thing the confei'ees did was to say
that the Secretary of War should make
the determination. Someone must make
the determination. That is the only dif¬
ference.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator under¬
stand that if the Secretary of War should
determine that the cost would be $11,-
200,000, the State plan would be thrown
into the discard, and the Secretary might
revert to the original plan of one big
dam in the valley?
Mr. OVER’TON. ’Tliat is correct. That
could have been done anyway.
Mr. AIKEN. That is not my under¬
standing of the intention of the Senate
in adopting the amendment. I will con¬
fess that I did not see the amendment
until perhaps 20 minutes before it was
adopted. Perhaps I should have insisted
on seeing it; but I had the idea that the
cost of the alternate plan, as modifled,
should not exceed $11,000,000.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the Senator in charge
of the bill a question.
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. As I understand, the
figure $11,000,000 was proposed by the
Senators from Vermont.
Mr. OVERTON. It was proposed in
the amendment offered by the Senator
^from Vermont [Mr. Austin].
Mr. AIKEN. I did not offer the
amendment.
Mr. MALONEY. It is my understand¬
ing that the figure was proposed by the
State of Vermont. I should be deeply
disappointed now, Mr. President, if after
the long discussion we had here and the
agreement which we felt we had reached,
a difference of $100,000 or $200,000 should
upset the hopes and ambitions of the dis¬
tinguished Senator from Vermont.
I am wondering whether it is possible
that the State of Vermont, through its
water commission, might be able to. bid
on the construction of these dams in or¬
der to protect itself if the need arose.
Mr. AIKEN. I do not know about
that, but I should be disappointed if the
1044
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
9401
Senator from Connecticut or any other
V Senator persisted in attempting to de¬
stroy our Vermont valley merely because
the dam would cost $200,000 more than
the limitation.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I am
sorry th^ Senator from Vermont did not
hear what I said a moment ago. I rose
to say that I felt as he did, and that I
would be deeply disappointed if the plans
were changed.
Mr. AIKEN. I was sure the Senator
would feel that way; but as the matter
now stands, according to the interpre¬
tation given by the Senator from Louisi¬
ana, if the dams cost $200,000 more 3 or
4 years from now, the Secretary of V/ar
will be authorized to revert to the one
big dam which would destroy the valley.
Mr. OVERTON. That would have
been my answ'er when w'e voted on the
amendment on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. AIKEN. Then, Mr. President, I
accepted the amendment under a mis¬
apprehension.
Mr. OVERTON. I am sorry.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen¬
ator from Louisiana has the floor. Does
he yield, and if so, to whom?
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I think
it is best to take up the items in the con¬
ference report in order, so as to dispose
of it. »
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, the
Senator from Louisiana yielded to me.
Mr. OVERTON. Very well; I yield to
the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MALONEY. If my memory serves
me correctly, the Senator from Vermont
IMr. Austin] is the one who used the
figure in the debate. I think he pointed
out that in using the $11,000,000 figure,
he was allowing considerable leeway.
I assume that the alternative for the
State of Vermont is to bid on the con¬
struction of the dam. If $11,000,000 is
used as the figure, I think there will yet
be a possibility of constructing the dam
under the auspices of the State of the
Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. Overton, i yield.
Mr. AIKEN. As I understand the mat¬
ter, the original estimate of the cost was
betw'een $9,000,000 and $10,000,000.
Then the figure was set at $11,000,000, to
allow some leeway in costs. However, I
would call attention to the fact that the
Army engineers have already increased
the cost for the construction of the one
big dam at Williamsville by 25 percent,
although the figures have not yet been
officially presented to Congress or to any
comrpittee. But I have a letter from the
War Department covering the matter.
It follows that if the estimate of cost
for the small dams which the Senate sup¬
posed it was voting for are increased
25 percent, then the plan the Senate
supposed it was voting for would be
thrown out, and just one big dam would
be built on the river. That would de¬
stroy the valley. There would be an ab¬
solutely destructive loss to the State of
Vermont, although the dam might be of
value in maintaining the flow of the Con¬
necticut River farther downstream.
It seems to me it is not proper, when
the Senate thought it was voting for the
alternate plan, to put in any other
amendment or to do anything else which
would cause any difirerent interpretaliion
to be placed upon the amendment we
considered.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, this
Connecticut River Basin project has been
before the Congress for years, and it has
been legislated frequently. The Sen¬
ators from Vermont were not satisfied
with the Williamsville site dam, and they
went before the House committee. It
was agreed to in the House of Repre¬
sentatives, as I understand, that it would
be satisfactory if the Williamsville site
dam were made a flood-control dam. and
if it were not a high dam.
So the item came over to us from the
House of Representatives with that pro¬
vision, as I understand, agreed to by the
Senators from Vermont. When it came
to the Senate, I spent hours with the
Senators from Vermont and the mem¬
bers of the committee in attempting to
obtain something which we could recom¬
mend and something which ^ould be
satisfactory to them. I thought we had
the matter settled when we agreed that
no higher dam would be constructed at
the Williamsville site and that none of
the dams would be used for the gen¬
eration of power.
Then the row which has been before
the Senate all these years broke out
again.
Then the Senators from Connecticut
and ’Vermont solemnly conferred, and
they returned with what might be termed
a State compact between the States.
They offered it. When it was adopted,
the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Aiken] arose and expressed his gratifi¬
cation over adoption of the amendment.
The same amendment was agreed to in
conference, with the sole addition of the
provision that the Secretary of War shall
determine the cost. Someone must de¬
termine the cost. That is the only addi¬
tion which has been made.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, v/ill the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. The amendment con¬
cerning the Connecticut River Valley is
exactly the same as the one which we
discussed when the bill was before the
Senate. It has been changed only by
adding the provision that the Secretary
of War shall have power to decide in
this particular instance.
The amendment was discussed. It
was agreed to by the Senators from Ver¬
mont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
It has not been changed in any respect
from the amendment which was the
subject of the agreement which we made
when we discussed the whole project,
with the single exception that someone
has been given authority under the
amendment to decide what the facts are.
When that particular amendment was
before the committee of conference, one
of the conferees on the part of the House
discussed these particular words with the
senior Senator from Vermont and with
me. We still found ourselves in "agi-ee-
ment that it did not change in any re¬
spect the substance, of what we had
agreed to when we discussed this matter
when the bill was before the Senate.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, the
Senator is correct.
Mr. REED rose. •
Mr. OVERTON. I yield to the Sena¬
tor from Kansas.
Mr. reed! Mr. President, as I under¬
stand the matter, the Senator from
Louisiana is submitting the conference
report on House bill 4485. I do not mind
depending upon the generosity and cour¬
tesy of the Senator from Louisiana, but
I think I might discuss the conference
report in my own. right as a Senator,
whenever that time comes.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I do
not think anyone is questioning the right
of the Senator to address the Senate.
But I thought I would explain the con¬
ference- report first.
So I will explain the report, and then
I shall yield to any Senator who wishes
to discuss it.
Mr. President, the Senate receded from
the amendments covering the following
projects:
The Housatonic River project, the sub¬
ject matter of which was discussed on the
floor of the Senate this afternoon. It
yielded on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Ba¬
sin project; the Pugatoire River, Colo.;
Trinidad area project; and the project
on the Galena River at Galena, Ill.
The Senate reduced the authorization
from $418,000 to $300,000.
The Senate also receded from its
amendment striking out the Tuttle Creek
project on the Big Blue River for the
protection of Kansas City. The Senate
had provided in the bill that the Depart¬
ment of Agriculture should not acquire
any lands for water retardation and pre¬
vention of soil erosion.
The House had authorized acquisition
of certain lands. The House yielded with
the amendment that no land should be
acquired in any State without the con¬
sent of the legislature of the State; and
furthermore that the Federal Govern¬
ment should pay to the county in which
the land lies, for reimbursement for
taxes, a sum equivalent to 1 percent of
the purchase price.
Mr. President, those are the amend¬
ments on which the Senate yielded either
in whole or in part.
The House receded with certain
amendments. The most important one
is what is known as the electric-power
amendment, which has been fully dis¬
cussed on the floor of the Senate.
The main amendment to this provi¬
sion, agreed upon in conference, is on
page 8, line,.24, after the word “commis¬
sion” to insert the following:
Rate schedules shall he drawn having re¬
gard to the recovery (upon the basis of the
application of such rate schedules to the
capacity of the electric facilities of the pro¬
jects) of the cost of producing and trans¬
mitting such electric energy, including the
amortization of the capital Investment allo¬
cated to power over a reasonable period of
years.
That is the Bonneville provision and it
is inserted bodily in the pending bill.
There w’ere also one or two minor
amendments which did not change the
meaning of the provisions affected.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
9402
In respect to the irrigation amend¬
ment, the House agreed to it. It has
been said that the President desired
that the Senate amendment should cover
what is known as the California projects.
The Senate amendment does cover those
projects, as explained on the floor of the
Senate when they were under considera¬
tion. It applies to all projects which
are subject to the irrigation law. It
makes the projects authorized in the bill
subject to the irrigation law. Section 8
of the bill clearly places reclamation
uses of water from these projects under
the Secretary of the Interior, and under
the applicable reclamation law. No proj¬
ect in this bill — which may include ir¬
rigation features — is exempted from the
reclamation laws. I say “in this bill”
because there is an exception, namely,
the John Martin Dam in Colorado, which
is exempted from the provisions of the
reclamation laws.
Mr. President, the total authorizations
in the bill as it comes from conference
are $950,000,000 as against $959,465,000
as passed by the Senate. The reduction
arises from striking out certain projects
and modifying certain others. The
House receded on a very large number
of amendments which the Senate had
incorporated in the bill, and which it is
not necessary to deal with in detail be¬
cause they are all in the Senate amend¬
ments which were agreed to. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
South Dakota authorizing an appropria¬
tion of $500,000 as an emergency fund
for construction of emergency protec¬
tion works, was agreed to with the in¬
clusion of the word “bank” so that it
would read “emergency bank protection
works.”
Mr. President, I have stated the
amendments. I have a detailed state¬
ment and I ask unanimous consent that
it be printed in the Record at this point
as a part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the state¬
ment was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
P^ooD Control Conference Report
SENATE RECEDES
Senate amendment 27, page 17, line 23:
Housatonlc River Basin (Thomaston Reser¬
voir on Naugatuck River) .
The Senate amendment provided that the
project for this reservoir is authorized “when
approved pursuant to provisions of paragraph
(a) of section 1 of this act.” The Senate
amendment was a floor amendment proposed
by the junior Senator from Connecticut. A
review report can be obtained on resolution
of either Senate Commerce Committee or
House Flood Control Committee. If further
study shows that the pj'oject^is undesirable
under present clrcumstancesT the Chief of
Engineers will withhold constimctlon.
Senate amendment 30, page 19, line 18:
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
The Senate amendment provided for re¬
ferring the general plan for the comprehen¬
sive development of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin for flood control and other pur¬
poses to the Committee on Commerce, to the
end that hearings might be had with the peo¬
ple concerned and with Instructions to re¬
port back to the Senate within 6 months.
The receding by the Senate leaves this plan
unauthorized.
Senate Amendment 36, page 24, line 20:
Pugatoire River, Colo., Trinidad area.
The House bill authorized the project on
this river for local flood protection at Trini¬
dad, Colo. The amendment of the Senate
provided for modification of the project to
Include storage and reservoirs upstream from
Trinidad. Tills modification has heretofore
been studied and rejected by the engineers.
The author of the Senate amendment, the
junior Senator from Colorado, may ask for
a review report through committee resolu¬
tion. A restudy is already in progress as
part of an authorized investigation of the
upper Arkansas River and tributaries.
Senate Amendment 39, page 26, line 19:
Project on Galena River for local flood protec¬
tion at Galena, Ill.
The Senate reduced authorization from
$418,000 to $300,000.
Seriate Amendment 44, page 29, line 20 :
The Senate receded from its amendment
striking out Tuttle Creek Dam on the Big
Blue River for protection of Kansas City.
Conferees understand that the engineers are
now engaged in studying a review of the
project.
Senate Amendment 85, page 50, line 15.
Senate Amendment 86, page 51, line 1.
Senate Amendment 87, page 51, line 12.
Senate Amendment 88, page 51, line 20.
Senate Amendment 89, page 51, line 21.
Senate Amendment 91, page 53, line 22.
The bill authorizes certain works of im¬
provement for run-off and waterflow retarda¬
tion and soil erosion prevention to be prose¬
cuted by the Department of Agriculture.
The House bill authorized the acquisition of
various tracts of land aggregating 1,458,000
acres at an estimated cost of $12,378,350 in
California, Texas, Mississippi and the Washita
and Little Tallahatchie River watersheds.
The Senate amendment Inhibited the acqui¬
sition of any land for this purpose by the
Federal Government and eliminateff from
the bill the amounts corresponding to the
estimated costs of such land acquisition.
The Senate and House made joint recessions
from these amendments with amendments
which provided that no lands can be acquired
by the Department of Agriculture for the pur¬
poses above mentioned “until the legislature
of the State in which the land lies shall have
consented to the acquisition of lands by the
United States for the purposes within the
scope of this section: Provided further, That
there shall be paid annually to the county
in which any lands acquired under this sec¬
tion may lie, a sum equal to 1 percent of the
purchase price paid for the lands acquired
in that county, or if not acquired by purchase,
1 percent of their valuation at the time of
their acquisition.”
HOUSE RECEDES WITH AMENDMENTS
Senate Amendment No. 1: The House re¬
ceded from Senate amendment No. 1 with an
amendment striking out all of the first para¬
graph of this amendment. The first para¬
graph is what is known., as the McClellan
amendment establishing a definite policy of
making use of existing Federal agencies for
construction, operation, and maintenance of
all public Improvements provided for in the
act in connection with navigation, flood con¬
trol, and Allied activities, and so forth. The
remainder, of Senate Amendment No. 1 is
what is known as the O’Mahoney-Mllllkln
amendment sponsored by 22 Senators. No
change was made in the Senate-adopted
O’Mahoney-Millikin amendment.
Senate Amendment 9, section 5, page 8,
line 15: Being the electric power amend¬
ment.
The House receded with the following
amendment: Line 24, after the word “com¬
mission” insert the following: “Rate sched¬
ules shall be drawn having regard to the
recovery (upon the basis of the application
of such rate schedules to the capacity of the
electric facilities of the projects) of the cost
of producing and transmitting such electric
December 12
energy. Including the amortization of the
capital investment allocated to power over a'
reasonable period of years.”
(b) On page 9, line 2, after the word
“authorized”, insert “from funds to be ap¬
propriated by the Congress.”
(c) On page 9, line 2. after the word “con¬
struct”, strike out “and” and substitute “or.”
(d) After the word “acquire”, insert “by
purchase or other agreement.”
So that as amended the provision reads:
“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized
from funds to be appropriated by the Con¬
gress to construct or acquire by purchase or
other agreement only such transmission lines
and related facilities as may be necessary in
order to make the power and energy gen¬
erated at said projects available in wholesale
quantities for sale,” etc.
(e) Page 9, line 8, after the word “com¬
panies.” insert the following: “All moneys
received from such sale of power shall be de¬
posited in the Treasury of the United States
as miscellaneous receipts."
Senate Amendment No. 26, page 16, line 2:
Connecticut River Basin.
The House receded with the clarifying
amendment: on line 17 after the word ’‘Pro¬
vided’’ Insert “That the Secretary of War
determines that” so as to authorize the Sec¬
retary of War to determine that the total
costs of the alternate plan of eight reservoirs
in the West River Basin shall not exceed
the sum of $11,000,000.
Senate Amendment No. 33, page 21, line 10:
Set-back levees.
The House receded with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute lor the purposes
of clarifying the provision without any al¬
teration of the intended purpose of the Sen¬
ate amendment. The substitute reads as
follows: Strike out the language on line 13
through line 2, page 22, and insert in lieu
thereof: “Paragraph (d) of the lower Mis¬
sissippi River item in section 3 of the Flood
Control Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby con¬
strued to authorize reimbursement for the
actual market value of lands, rights-of-way,
and easements, subsequent to August 18,
1941, for set-backs of main-line Mississippi
River levees, regardless of State laws limiting
payments to local tax assessment valuations.”
Senate amendment 37, page 25, line 12:
The House bill authorized appropriations for
continuation of the previously approved com¬
prehensive plan for the Upper Mississippi
River Basin and the Senate amendment in¬
cludes therein the project for the Red Rock
Dam on the Des Moines River for flood con¬
trol and other purposes, with the following
proviso: “Provided that the elevation of the
crest of the spillway of the dam shall not
exceed 780 feet above mean sea level.” (Sen¬
ator Gillette.) The House receded with an
amendment striking out the proviso. It was
felt by the conferees that the engineers will
take proper precautions against damage being
inflicted upon the city of Des Moines by the
construction of the project.
Senate amendment 52, page 34, line 9
(Senator Jenner) : Strike out “No provision
of this or any other act, etc.” and insert:
“Neither this authorization nor any previous
authorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of the Shoals Dam on the
East Fork of the White River in Martin
County, Ind., pending submission and
adoption by Congress of the report auth^-
Ized in the Flood Control Act of August Tl,
1939.”
Senate amendment 82, page 48, line 22:
The Senate amendment authorized $959,-
465,000 to be appropriated, carrying out the
Improvements by the War Department. The
House receded with an amendment reducing
this sum to $950,000,000. This was due to
the elimination and modiflcation of various
projects in the bill.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 9403
HOUSE RECEDES
On all remaining Senate amendments not
above referred to the House receded with
only several occasional minor clarifying
aniendments.
The main Senate amendments on which
the House receded are the following:
Senate amendment 17, page 10, beginning
at line 9, and continuing to the end of line
24, on page 11, being the irrigation amend¬
ment.
Senate amendment 18, page 11, line 25, and
contjpuing to end of line 11 on page 13,
being section 9 (a), putting into effect the
projects in the Missouri Basin agreed upon
between the Chief of Engineers and the
Department of the Interior.
Senate amendment 20, page 14, lines 14 to
20. inclusive. Lake Champlain Basin, modi¬
fication- of existing Waterbury, Wrlghtsvllle,
and East Barre Dams in the Winooski River
Basin.
Senate amendment 21, page 14, line 21, to
end of line 2, page 15, Blackstone River Ba¬
sin, authorization of project for the West
Hill Reservoir on the West River, Mass.
Senate amendment 23, page 15, lines 3 to
8, Inclusive, authorization of project on
Blackstone River at Worcester, R. I.
Senate amendment 24, page 15, lines 9 to
14, inclusive, authorization of project on
Blackstone River at Woonsocket, R. I.
Senate amendment 25, page 15, lines 15 to
20, inclusive, authorization of project on
Seekonk River, Pawtucket, R. I.
Senate amendment 29, page 19, lines 7 to
17, Inclusive, approval of general plan for
the comprehensive development of the Roa¬
noke River Basin in Virginia and North Caro¬
lina, and authorization of»the construction
of the Buggs Island Reservoir on the Roanoke
River in Virginia and North Carolina, and the
Philpott Reservoir on the Smith River, Va.
Senate amendment 31, page 20, lines 3-8
inclusive, authorization of project on Edisto
River, S. C.
Senate amendment 32, page 20, lines 9-18
inclusive, approval of comprehensive devel¬
opment of Savannah River Basin and con¬
struction of Clark Hill Reservoir on Savan¬
nah River in South Carolina and Georgia
authorized.
Senate amendment 34, page 23, lines 6-13
inclusive, authorization of project on Red
River in vicinity fcf Shreveport, La.
Senate amendment 35, page 23, lines 14-20
inclusive, authoi'ization of Blakely Mountain
Dam on Ouachita River, Ark.
Senate amendment 38, page 26, lines 3-8
inclusive, authorization of project on Des
Moines River.
Senate amendment 40, page 27, lines 18-24
inclusive, authorization of project for Bald
Hill Reservoir on Sheyenne River, N. Dak.
Senate amendment 41, page 27, line 25,
and page 28, liner 1-6 inclusive, authoriza¬
tion of reservoir on Pembina River and res¬
ervoir on Tongue River, N. Dak.
Senate amendment 42, page 28, lines 7-13
inclusive, authorization of reservoir on South
Branch of Park River, N. Dak.
Senate amendment 45, page 31, lines 11-16
inclusive, authorization of plan for local
flood protection on Cha;'iton River, Mo,
Senate amendment 46, page 32, lines 24 and
25, and page 33, lines 1-3, inclusive, author¬
ization of plan of improvement in Kentucky
River Basin.
Senate amendment 47, page 33, lines 4-8,
inclusive, authorization of local flood protec¬
tion works at Mlddlesborough on Yellow
Creek, Ky.
Senate amendment 48, page 33, lines 9-13,
inclusive, authorization of local flood protec¬
tion works on Rough River and tributaries,
Kentucky.
S;nate amendment 49, page 33, lines 14-18,
inclusive, authorization of Turtle Creek Res¬
ervoir on Turtle Creek, Pa.
Senate amendment 50, page 33, lines 24
and 25, and page 34, lines 1-3, inclusive.
elimination of Rowlesburg Reservoir on Cheat
River
Senate amendment 61, page 34, lines 4-8,
inclusive, elimination of improvement in
Youghiogheny River Basin.
Senate amendment 53, page 35, lines 12-17,
inclusive, authorization of project for Mount
Morris Reservoir on Genesee River, N. Y.
Senate amendment 54, page 36, lines 15-20,
inclusive. Great Salt Basin, authorization of
project on Sevier River at Redmond, Utah.
Senate amendments 55 and 56. page 36,
lines 21-24, inclusive, and page 37, lines 1
and 2, Colorado River Basin, authorization
of project for Alamo Reservoir on Bill Wil¬
liams River, Ariz.
Senate amendment 57, page 37, lines 3-8,
Inclusive, authorization of project on Little
Colorado River at Holbrook, Ariz.
Senate amendment 58, page 38, lines 15-21,
inclusive- — Pajaro River Basin — plan of im¬
provement on Pajaro River and tributaries,
California, authorized.
Senate amendment 59, page 38, lines 24
and 25, and page 39, lines 1-7, inclusive —
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, Sacra¬
mento River, modification of projects on
Sacramento River, Calif.
Senate amendment 60, page 39, line 25,
and page 40, lines 1-6, Inclusive, authoriza¬
tion of project for Folsom Reservoir on Amer¬
ican River, Calif.
Senate amendment 61, page 42, lines 4-9,
inclusive, authorization of plan of improve¬
ment for flood control on Calaveras River
and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, Cali¬
fornia.
Senate amendment 62, page 42, lines 10-16,
inclusive, authorization of project for Conn
Creek Reservoir on Conn Creek, in Napa
River Basin, Calif.
Senate amendment 63, page 44, lines 11-17,
Inclusive, Chehalis River Basin — authoriza¬
tion of project on Chehalis River at Hoquiam,
Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis, Wash.
Senate amendment 64, page 44, lines 19-24,
inclusive, authorization of project on Hana-
pepe River, T. H.
All Senate amendments for preliminary
examination and survey items were agreed
to.
Senate amendment 83, page 49, lines 10-20
inclusive, authorization of appropriation of
$500,000 as emergency fund for construction
of emergency bank protection works to pre¬
vent flood damage to highways, bridge ap¬
proaches, and public works.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield.
Mr. HILL. There still seems to be con¬
fusion on the part of some Senators with
reference to the application of reclama¬
tion laws in regard to some of these proj¬
ects.
I heard the distinguished senior Sena¬
tor from Louisiana, when the bill was
under consideration, and I think he made
it very clear. However, I wish to ask this
question: Is it not a fact that section 8
of this bill, as agreed to in conference,
makes some reclamation laws applicable
to the handling of irrigation water of any
of the projects, including California proj¬
ects, where it is found that irrigation may
be carried out? I ask the Senator in
charge of the bill whether it is not a fact
that the President wanted the California
projects in this bill constructed under the
Bureau of Reclamation so that the water
policies would conform to reclamation
laws?
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator is cor¬
rect with respect to the projects in the
so-called Central Valley of California.
The President wrote me and the chair¬
man of the subcommjttee in this regard.
However, in view of the fact that the Sen¬
ate amendment made not only the Cali¬
fornia projects but all such projects sub¬
ject to irrigation laws, and in view of the
fact that the House concjirred in this ac¬
tion by agreeing to section 8 of the Sen¬
ate bill, I am sure that the President will
feel that we have met the problem that he
raised. Section 8 of the bill clearly places
reclamation uses of water from these
projects under the Secretary of the In¬
terior and under the applicable reclama¬
tion laws. No project in this bill which
may include irrigation features is ex¬
empted from the reclamation laws.
Mr. HILL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. OVERTQN. The Senate amend¬
ment made not only the California proj¬
ects, but all such projects subject to the
irrigation law. In view of the fact the
House concurred in that action by agree¬
ing to section 8 of the bill, I am sure the
Senator from Alabama will feel that we
have met the question which he has
raised. As I sfated a while ago, section
8 of the bill clearly places reclamation
uses of waters from all projects author¬
ized in this bill under the Secretary of
the Interior, and under the applicable
reclamation laws.
Mr. HILL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
yield the floor.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to
say just a few words. I wish to dwell
first on the treatment given the people
of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connec¬
ticut, and the treatment given to the
people of Kansas in the bill. There is a
difference of opinion between Vermont
on the one h^nd and Massachusetts and
Connecticut on the other. There is a
difference of interest and opinion and of
sentiment on some projects embodied in
the bill as to Kansas, but all the people
happen to live in Kansas.
The senior Senator from Kansas [Mr.
Capper] a few days ago offered an
amendment to the bill touching what is
known as the Tuttle Creek Dam. That
is a big dam, and its construction will
result in drowning out one of the most
prosperous and most beautiful valleys in
the United States, for about 125 miles,
in Kansas. What the people of that val¬
ley would prefer would be more small
dams, and not just this one big dam.
The people of Vermont were permitted
to substitute eight small dams for the
one large dam. We were denied any op¬
portunity to do that.
The second thing is that this Tuttle
Creek Dam is included in the bill before
us, which is a flood control bill. The Tut¬
tle Creek Dam is not only a flood control
project. Admittedly the Army engineers
have included a part of the height of that
dam, to which the people of that valley
take serious exception, for navigation
purposes. That is admitted, because
they have told me that the dam is to be
made higher than it need be for flood
control, in order to provide water for
navigation in the Missouri River, where
sometimes the bed of the stream be¬
comes so dry that the catfish get dust in
their eyes as they swim up the stream.
I was told by the conferees that they
rejected our amendment partly because
of the insistence of Kansas City, Mo.,
9404
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Decemb:h:r 12
whose main interest is in navigation on
the Missouri. I do not mean to say they
are without interest in flood control,
but their main interest is in navigation
on the Missouri. Our main interest is
in flood control, and now, at this late
hour, in this flood control bill, we find
an item and a policy which will absolutely
ruin one of the most beautiful and fertile
valleys to be found anywhere.
Surely if Massachusetts and Connecti¬
cut could agree on a different policy with
Vermont so as to substitute eight small
dams for one large dam, and the eight
small dams, even at that, Mr. President,
had to have only 75 percent as much wa¬
ter as the one large dam would have had,
and solely on the ground of the destruc¬
tion of fertile land in Vermont, then 1
say we in Kansas were denied what we
were reasonably and fairly entitled to
have in the bill, so far as this item is
concerned.
Mr. President, this is the first compre¬
hensive attempt that has been made to
meet the flood-control problem. Like
every other Senator on this floor, I want
to see something done about the flood-
control problem, but I want it done fairly
and reasonably, and always with the va¬
rious projects justified economically, with
the benefits to be derived as much or
more than the cost and the damages to-*
the people. This bill is not built on that
basis. The so-called river and harbor
bill and the flood-control bill are loosely
drawn, are recklessly put together, with¬
out any regard to cost, so that the cost
may reach to $2,000,000,000 for the two
bills, according to the discretion of the
Army engineers.
I have not seen two pieces of pork-
barrel legislation during my 6-year term
in the Senate such as are found in these
two bills, which we are passing as care¬
lessly and recklessly, and without regard
to cost, as though it were a small sum,
as though we were out of debt, as though
W'e had an overflowing Treasury, as
though our taxes were already down to
a point where the people could pay.
I do not intend to oppose the adoption
of the conference report despite these
serious defects. I want to make a start
on a flood-control policy, and to some
extent future legislation may minimize
the evils of the present bills.
Mr. MALONEY.. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I yield.
Mr. MALONEY. Did the Senator vote
to strike out any of the projects in the
bill when it was under consideration?
Mr. REED. We offered an amend¬
ment, which the chairman of the sub¬
committee accepted, with the usual sug¬
gestion that he would take it to confer¬
ence; and I knew what that meant, of
course, that it went to conference, and
In conference it was pitched out on its
ixcclc
Mr. MALONEY. I did not hear the
Senator propose any amendment which
would strike out projects in the bill.
Mr. REED. We wrote an amend¬
ment; I have forgotten the exact lan¬
guage which my colleague, the senior
Senator from Kansas [Mr. Capper],
offered, which the chairman of the sub¬
committee accepted, which would have
stricken out the provision for this big
dam in Kansas called the Tuttle Creek
Dam, language, as I recollect it, to the
effect that “nothing herein contained
shall be considered to authorize the con¬
struction of the Tuttle Creek Dam.”
Some consideration was given Vermont
as against the lower valley. Kansas did
not get such consideration.
Mr. MALONEY. Is the Senator now
objecting to the so-called Vermont pro¬
posal?
Mr. REED. No; of course not; what
I am objecting to is that a reasonable
program substituting eight small dams
for one large dam was granted to Ver¬
mont, to protect its interests, and denied
to Kansas.
Mr. MALONEY. That was not with¬
drawn.
Mr. REED. I did not say it was with¬
drawn. I do not know how the Senator
got any such idea.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator said this
was the worst “pork barrel” bill he had
known of during his term of service.
Mr. REED. Yes.
Mr. MALONEY. There were scores of
projects in the bill, and the Senator sat
in his place and, at least by his silence,
acquiesced in the projects.
Mr. REED. If my vote could have de¬
feated the river and harbor bill, it cer¬
tainly would have been defeated. It is
one of the worst “pork barrel” bills, I have
ever heard of.
Mr. MALONEY. The Senator did not
object out loud.
Mr. REED. If the Senator had been
here last week when I was discussing it,
he would have known that was what I
said, as the Senator from Montana and
other Senators can attest. I may be say¬
ing it a little more emphatically this
afternoon, but 3 or 4 days ago I said the
same thing, if it pleases the Senator from
Connecticut, perhaps when he was not
present.
Mr. MALONEY. Yes, the Senator
from Connecticut was present, and the
Senator from Connecticut was a member
of the committee which reported the bill
under consideration, and the Senator
from Connecticut does not think these
are “pork barrel” bills. There are some
projects in them to which I am opposed,
and some have been adopted to which I
am opposed, but I say it is very unfair
for a Senator to stand on the floor of
the Senate after a bill is passed and say
it is “the worst ‘pork barrel’ bill I have
seen during my 6 years,” when during
the consideration of the bill he sat silent.
Mr. REED. I have not asked the
Senator from Connecticut for his ap¬
proval; I am indifferent whether I have
it or not. The fact remains that in the
financial circumstances of this country,
when we are going to end the war, even
if we end it next year, with a debt so
overwhelming that no one can figure out
a way to take care of it, we recklessly,
carelessly, without due thought, without
due consideration, pass two bills which
will allow an expenditure of $2,000,000,-
000 to be added to the national debt.
Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I
should like to invite the attention of the
Senator from Kansas to a thought or
two.
The Senator proceeds upon the theory
that if the Senate conferees keep one
amendmei^Vtn a bill they should be able
to keep other amendments in the bill.
The House had to yield on some amend¬
ments, and it yielded a great many more
times than the Senate had to yield. Both
had to yield on certain items or we would
not have had a bill.
It happens that we got through with
the Connecticut River Basin provision.
There was no disagreement. The House
did not object to it, with the single modi¬
fication which has already been discussed
on the floor of the Senate,
When we came to the Tuttle Creek
Reservoir, to start with, the Tuttle Creek
Reservoir was authorized back in 1936.
The bill as it passed the House had noth¬
ing to do with Tuttle Creek, except that
it was a project approved June 22, 1936.
The language of the bill read:
The project adopted by the act of June 22,
J936, to provide flood protection for the
Kansas Citys. Kansas and Missouri, is hereby
modified and extended to provide for im¬
provement substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of En¬
gineers in House Document No. 342, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session.
And 'SO forth. The House conferees
objected to the amendment adopted by
the Senate which eliminated the Tuttle
Creek Reservoir, and they did so be¬
cause they received scores of telegrams
from Kansgs City, saying that unless
Tuttle Creek Reservoir were built Kan¬
sas City would be in danger of very
serious damage from flood. They in¬
sisted upon it. Furthermore, it was
stated by the engineers that this project
was undergoing restudy. It may be that
in the restudy some substitute can be
found for Tuttle Creek. But the Senate
conferees yielded. I have no apologies
to make for yielding. Certainly there
exists quite a strong feeling in Kansas
City, Mo., that Tuttle Creek should re¬
main in the bill.
Mr. HEED. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. OVERTON. I yield the floor.
Mr. REED. May I inquire of the Sen¬
ator from Louisiana when Kansas City,
Mo., commercial Interests superseded
the two Senators who here speak on the
Senate floor for the entire State of Kan¬
sas? When did Kansas City, which com¬
mercially is principally concerned in
navigation on the Missouri, come to a
place of such power in this Ijody that it
can supersede the two Senators who were
duly elected to speak for Kansas?
Mr. OVERTON. I was simply giving
the Senate a historical narration of facts
as to the events which occurred in con¬
ference.
Mr. REED. And a very frank admis¬
sion as to why the views of the Senators
from Kansas were disregarded.
Mr. OVERTON. Why the views of the
House conferees were accepted.
Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, may I
ask the Senator a question?
Mr. OVERTON. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. I should like an ex¬
planation of amendment numbered 52,
which appears on page 11 of the con¬
ference report. The amendment which
was adopted in the Senate was changed,
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 9405
and I should like an explanation of the
change.
Mr. OVERTON. That was the amend¬
ment which the Senator from Indiana
offered on the floor.
Mr. JENNER. I offered the amend¬
ment, and it has been modified and
changed. I should like to know why.
Mr. OVERTON. The change in
phraseology, as agreed to in conference,
is:
Neither this authorization nor any previous
authorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of the Shoals Dam on the
East Fork of the White River in Martin
County, Ind., pending submission and
adoption by Congress of the report author¬
ized in the Flood Control Act of August 11,
1939.
There is pending an investigation, as I
understand, by the Army engineers with
respect to this project and they have
not submitted their report. So the pro¬
vision is that neither the authorization
nor any previous authorization shall be
construed to authorize the construction
of the Shoals Dam pending submission
and adoption by the Congress of this re¬
port. It holds the matter in abeyance
until submission and adoption by the
Congress of the report.
Mr. JENNER. It does not change the
fact that under this act the Shoals Dam
' cannot be constructed. The only way it
can ever be constructed is by some
future act of Congress.
Mr. OVERTON. The Senator from
Indiana is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I should
like to get the situation with regard to
the West River a little bit clearer in my
mind. I am wondering perhaps if my
colleague can help clear it up. I should
like to ask if he considers $11,000,000
to be ample to construct the State’s alter¬
nate plan on the West River.
Mr. AUSTIN. I have had to depend
wholly on the representatives of the Ver¬
mont board for that information, and I
did rely upon it, and they told me that
it would be adequate, and gave me a
digest of the cost of the various dams,
which totals less than $11,000,000. I
cannot state the exact amount, but my
recollection is that it was between nine
and ten million dollars.
Mr. AIKEN. That is correct.
Mr. AUSTIN. I do not rely on mem¬
ory very much for figures, but that is my
recollection. No other representation
was made to the Senator and to me when
we were negotiating the terms of this
amendment. No other figure was given
than that. In any event, if my colleague
wishes me to proceed, I might say that
I feel that we are well protected by the
text of the amendment as it appears in
the conference report.
Shall I proceed and state why I think
we are?
Mr. AIKEN. Yes; I wish my colleague,
the senior Senator from Vermont would
proceed. As I understand, a representa¬
tive of the Army engineers was present
at the conference between my colleague
and the Senators from Connecticut and
Massachusetts, and he certainly should
have had some idea as to whether this
amount was adequate.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? I may be able to
throw a little light on that point.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. I think the Sen¬
ator from Connecticut can help us, too.
Mr. MALONEY. The figure which
was used in the discussion by the senior
Senator from Vermont, as I recall it,
was $9,400,000, and that, I should like to
point out, is a 1944 figure. It was a figure
given by a Boston engineering firm, as I
understand, and based on 1944 prices.
Mr. AUSTIN. I thank the Senator
from Connecticut very much. If I may
now proceed, I shall explain what I un-
derst^and the language of the amend¬
ment' provides in the way of two things:
First, fiood control for the benefit of
Massachusetts and Connecticut to the
extent of 75 percent of the volume of
fiood control which would have been pro¬
vided if the Williamsville Reservoir had
been utilized for fiood control instead of
an alternate plan.
Second, as to protection of the people
in the valley of the West River. The
essential protection in this language lies
in the necessity of an agreement be¬
tween the Vermont authorities and the
Federal authorities before any construc¬
tion whatever can be undertaken.
Mr. AIKEN. Is the Senator satisfied
that the West River Valley is included
in that provision?
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes. I shall read what
I think covers it.
Mr. AIKEN. I wish the Senator would.
Mr. AUSTIN. It is language beginning
in hne 9 on page 16:
Provided further, That the Army engineers
are authorized and directed to construct
eight reservoirs in the West River Basin in
Vermont instead of the flood control reser¬
voir authorized by existing law, known as
the Williamsville Reservoir in the above men¬
tioned towns, in accordance with an alterna¬
tive plan submitted by the Vermont State
Water Conservation Board as the same may
be modifled by agreement between the said
Board and the Secretary of War and the Chief
of Engineers, provided that the Secretary of
War determines that the total cost of the al¬
ternate plan shall not exceed the sum of
$11,000,000 and that the amount of flood con¬
trol secured by them at the entrance of the
waters of the West River into the Con¬
necticut River shall not be less than 75 per
cent of the flood control which may be
secured from the single so-called Williams¬
ville Reservoir now authorized to be con¬
structed by the Army engineers.
Mr. Pi’esident, that is not the entire
section, but it is that part which I say
protects the two objectives which I have
mentioned. There is one step necessary
before any plan can be started. The
Army engineers cannot begin operations
until there has been an agreement be-
tv/een the Vermont State Water Con¬
servation Board and the Secretary of
War and the Chief of Engineers upon the
modification which may be necessary.
What modifications does this bill con¬
template? Those in particular which are
contained in the proviso that the Secre¬
tary of War shall determine that the
costs shall not exceed $11,000,000, and
that the quantity of flood control shall
be as much as 75 percent.
This is the picture, as I see it, in prac¬
tice: As a Congress, we have determined
the policy that we will take a substitute
for the single dam. Wliat shall that sub¬
stitute be? It shall be eight dams, ac¬
cording to the plan submitted by the Ver¬
mont board, or it shall be seven dams, or
six dams, or five dams, or any number of
dams on which the respective authorities
agree. That is a part of the modifying
power. The Vermont State Water Con¬
servation Board, the Secretary of War,
and the Chief of Engineers must get to¬
gether. They must agree on a plan which
will do two things: First, provide 75 per¬
cent of flood control; and second, keep
within the limit of cost of $11,000,000.
How are the affected States perfectly
secure? We do not agree to any modi¬
fication unless it conforms to the policy
of Congress as declared in this bill. It is
up to us. What is the position of the
Federal Government? It refuses to
agree unless the modifled plan conforms
to the policy expressed in this bill.
Someone must find the facts as to cost.
I never had a doubt that it would be the
Secretary of War. That is the sole
method that I know of for finding the
facts. The modified plan would cost so
much. Therefore, we will submit what¬
ever agreement we wish to make to the
Secretary of War to have him say wheth¬
er the modified plan is within the proviso
relating to costs, and within the proviso
relating to efiBciency of flood control.
Mr. President, I should like to ask the
distinguished Senators from the States
of Massachusetts and Connecticut if I
have correctly stated their understand¬
ing of the provision.
Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I was
called from the Chamber for a few mo¬
ments while the Senator was speaking;
but to the extent that I heard him, my
understanding is in accord with his.
I should like to point out to him — it
may or may not be of interest to him —
that earlier, while he w'as detained from
the Chamber by an important commit¬
tee meeting, I stated that Vermont has
the further protection, as I see it, of
itself bidding on these dams. The Water
Commission of the State of Vermont
could build the dams. As the Senator
knows, projects of this sort are largely
constructed by private concerns. The
commission has the figure of $9,400,000.
It could protect itself pretty well by of¬
fering to construct the dams for $11,000,-
000.
Mr. AUSTIN. The plan may be modi¬
fied so as to cost even less.
Now let me ask the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Weeks] if I have
correctly stated the situation as he un¬
derstands it to be.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, I think I
may answer the Senator’s question sim¬
ply by repeating what I previously stated,
namely, that the amendment to w'hich we
agreed has been altered only by insert¬
ing the words “that the Secretary of War
determines that,” providing that the Sec¬
retary of War is the individual who shall
determine whether or not the conditions
are met. Otherwise, I believe that the
agreement as spelled out in the amend-
No. 174 - 8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
9406
merit is exactly the agreement which we
arrived at, and the understanding we all
had. I subscribe to the statement made
by the distinguished senior Senator from
Vermont insofar as I believe I understand
what he is describing.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I should
like to ask a simple question wliich will
narrow this thing down so that we can¬
not have any quibble about it in the fu¬
ture. Am I not correctly stating the
meaning of the amendment to be this;
With respect to the subject of cost and
the quantity of flood control, the Secre¬
tary of War is the person or officer chosen
by us to pass upon the question whether
the plan as modified by agreement be¬
tween the Federal Government and the
State governments conforms to the policy
of Congress?
Mr. MALONEY. I believe the Senator
Is quite correct.
Mr. AUSTIN. What does the Senator
from Massachusetts say?
Mr. WEEKS. In answer to the ques¬
tion, I understand that the Senator from
Vermont has stated the facts.
Mr. AUSTIN. Before any plan can go
into effect, Mr. President, there must be
an agreement between the Federal and
State governments; and we can be sure
that both parties to such agreement will
have it conform to the policy of not ex¬
ceeding $11,000,000 in cost, and not go¬
ing below 75 percent of flood control at
the mouth of the river. It is all within
the scope of the doctrine of cooperation
between the Federal Government and
the State governments.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, I should
like to add my further understanding
that if in the final analysis those con¬
ditions cannot be met, then Massachu¬
setts and Connecticut are to be provided
with the flood control contemplated in
the general over-all program. I believe
that is spelled out by the amendment,
and clearly understood.
Mr. AUSTIN. Provided that no modi¬
fication of it is made. That is another
protection. In the latter part of this
amendment is the following language;
Plans, proposals, or reports heretofore au¬
thorized for construction at Cambridgeport,
Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysville, In
the Connecticut River Basin, or any modifica¬
tion hereafter made of the comprehensive
plan for the Connecticut River Basin in Ver¬
mont under authority of the Flood Control
Act approved June 28, 1938, or of section 3
of the Flood Control Act approved August
18, 1941, shall not be carried out until after
compliance with the provisions of paragraph
(a) of section 1 of this act.
Mr. AIKEN. Does that Include the
West R ver Valley?
Mr. AUSTIN. Oh, yes; of course it
does.
Mr. AIKEN. Is it the understanding
of the Senator from Massachusetts also
that it includes the West River Valley?
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, I do not
quite understand the Senator’s question.
Mr. AIKEN. The proviso which relates
to contemplated dams at Cambridgeport,
Ludlow, Gaysville, and South Tunbridge,
and, I believe, to other dams which may
be contemplated in the future, must be
subject to objection on the part of the
State. I wonder whether the West River
Valley is included in that category in the
event the Secretary of War finds he can¬
not construct the dams included in the
State’s alternate plan for $11,000,000.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, I do not
understand that the West River Valley
is covered. It seems to me that the
West River Valley situation is spelled out
from start to finish in the first part of
the amendment.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. Presiderit, the words
my colleague used are not the words
upon which I rely for the claim that
modifications hereafter made mu.st be
sent to us for consideration as a State.
The provision to which I refer follows
the language my colleague cited. I rely
on the following provision;
Any modification hereafter made of the
comprehensive plan for the Connecticut
River Basin in Vermont under authority
of —
I will not repeat the citation of the
authority —
shall not be carried out until after compli¬
ance with the provisions of paragraph (a)
of section 1 of this act.
Mr. AIKEN. However, the plans for
the big dam at West River are not here¬
after to be made. They are already
made. That is why I ask whether the
West River Valley would be included in
that category.
Mr. AUSTIN. If we find that no
agreement whatever, by way of modifica¬
tion or otherwise, can be made of the
Vermont plan so that a system of dams
in lieu of one dam can be constructed at
a cost of not more than $11,000,000, such
dams to produce flood control of 75 per¬
cent, then — and only then — we come to
a consideration of the single dam.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator con¬
sider that if the Secretary of War deter¬
mines that the other dams cannot be
built for $11,000,000, he will be author¬
ized to revert to the single dam? I un¬
derstand that is the interpretation of
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. AUSTIN. Oh, no. He cannot
revert to that until we have agreed to
disagree. If we agree that we cannot
construct the Vermont plan, or any mod¬
ification of it, for $11,000,000, then, of
course, we revert to the Williamsville
Dam.
Mr. AIKEN. Then we revert to the
single dam.
Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; then we revert to
the single dam.
Mr. AIKEN. If prices increase dur¬
ing the next 3 or 4 years, so that the
series of dams would cost $11,500,000 or
$12,000,000, and if the Secretary of War
so determined, then he would be author¬
ized to construct the one big dam at
Williamsville, the cost of which might
have increased in the meantime to $15,-
000,000.
Mr. AUSTIN. Pie would not be au¬
thorized to do that until we had op¬
portunity to make an effort to agree
upon a modification of the Vermont plan
which would conform to this proviso.
It is all within our power. Every step
is within the scope of our agreement. No
cloud should be thrown on that interpre¬
tation of the amendment. I think the
■'ECEMBER 12
amendment is very clear in all its pro¬
visions.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. AUSTIN. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. I think the last state¬
ment made by the distinguished senior
Senator from Vermont [Mr. Austin]
clarifies the problem, when he said that
the single dam can be built only if in the
final analysis it is determined that no
series of 8, or 9, or 10 dams can be
.erected.
Mr. AUSTIN. Or six or five.
Mr. WEEKS. Or six or five dams
within the projected $11,000,000 cost
providing the 75 percent fiood protec¬
tion. Only if in the final analysis a
solution cannot be reached, then, as the
senior Senator from Vermont has said,
do we revert to the single dam.
Mr. AUSTIN. That is a very clear
statement.
■ Mr. AIKEN. The final analysis comes
when the Secretary of War says, “I can¬
not build those dams for $11,000,000.”
In the meantime prices may have be¬
come inflated 25 or 30 percent.
Mr. President, I have a letter from
Colonel Goethals under date of Septem¬
ber 27, 1944, in which he states;
The cost of a dam for flood control only
at mile 8.3, which is the site of the Williams-
vllle Dam referred to in House Document No.
724, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session,
was estimated at $6,280,000 in that report.
That was the report, I believe, which
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors
considered, and it considered a cost of
$6,280,000.
But Colonel Goethals further states in
his letter;
Under present economic conditions. It Is
expected that the structure proposed in that
report would cost $8,400,000.
There is an increase of approximately
32 or 33 percent.
If the Army engineers or the State
engineers have estimated that the alter¬
nate plan would cost $9,000,000, and if
subsequently they find that the cost of
materials and labor has increased 30
percent, the total cost will be far in ex¬
cess of the $11,000,000 limit. Under such
conditions the Army engineers could not
agree with the State that the series of
dams could be built for $11,000,000.
Then would they not be authorized to
go ahead with the construction of the
big dam which had been authorized in
the first place?
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, we pro¬
vided for a factual condition, namely, a
$11,000,000 limitation of cost and the
provision of a minimum protection of
75 percent. That agreement — and it
was an agreement — was made on the
basis of information afforded by our
own engineer and acquiesced in by the
Army engineers’ representatives here.
We could do nothing else except take
their figures on that matter. We as¬
sumed that to be the fact which would be
our guide in connection with this legis¬
lation.
If they had said $15,000,000, we would
not have agreed to anything else, of
course.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 9407
Now we have all agreed to it, and we
have assumed that fact. We have gone
ahead and enacted this legislation with
that fact ahead of us. It has to be a
fact, not a whimsey, not an arbitrary
ruling. This legislation can not be di¬
verted or frustrated by having someone
arbitrarily say, “You have made the
agreement now, and it will cost more
than $11,000,000.”
That is not the spirit of this bill. It is
not the provision of the bill. We expect
that such a distinguished oflBcer of the
United States as the Secretary of War
will deal honestly, and that he will give
us, in advance of any agreement between
his representative and us, the informa¬
tion whether the design we are nego¬
tiating is within the proviso or without
it. We will not agree unless he does.
His engineers will not agree unless he
does. Only in the event that it is im¬
possible to construct the series of dams
will the single dam be constructed.
Mr. AIKEN. If the Secretary of War
determines that the pi’oject cannot be
built for $11,000,000, what recourse will
Vermont have?
Mr. AUSTIN. Vermont will have no
recourse under the law accept to hold
the Federal Government to the terms of
the amendment, which would be that in
constructing the single dam the flood-
control type of dam would be used.
That is all there is.
Mr. AIKEN. What is the difference
between a flood-control type of dam, as
the Senator defined it the other day, and
a storage type of dam? In my original
amendment I had the words “detention”
or “retention,” a type of dam such as
may be found in Ohio, and which has
an opening in it so that the water cannot
be held back indefinitely.
Mr. AUSTIN. That was explained to
me by the Army engineers as being the
d'flerence between a dam with a fixed
opening and one with several openings
which could be closed during the peak
of a flood when it is necessary to com¬
pletely shut off the water for short
periods.
Mr. AIKEN. With that type of dam in
the valley would it not be possible to hold
back the water all summer?
Mr. AUSTIN. No; I think not. I be¬
lieve that would be a violation of the law.
Mr. AIKEN. It would be a violation
of the intent of the law.
Mr. AUSTIN. Certainly.
Mr. ATKEN. I agree with the Senator.
Mr. AUSTIN. What does this mean?
Has my colleague departed from the
agreement which he made?
Mr. AIKEN. I certainly did not inter¬
pret the agreement as permitting the
construction of a big dam on the West
River.
Mr. AUSTIN. How did the Senator
interpret the following language:
Nothing in this act or in any previous
authorization shall be construed to authorize
the construction of a dam, other than a
flood control type dam, on the main stream
of the West River in the towns of Dummer-
ston or Newfane in the State of Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. That is. a part of the
amendment which I wrote, and which
the Senator incorporated, and I had the
word “detention” or “retention” in the
language, referring to the type of dam
which would have a perpetual opening in
it so that it could not be used to flood the
valley indefinitely. When the Senator
added the remainder of the language,
and we authorized and directed the
Secretary of War to construct a series of
dams in accordance with the Vermont
alternative plan, it appeared to me, as a
layman, that Vermant was secure against
the construction of a big dam which
would destroy the valley, whether the
dam v/as for retention, detention, flood
control, power, or storage.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I find it
not very helpful to review what occurred
before the amendment was agreed to.
My colleague asked the question when
the bill and the amendment were before
the Senate for consideration, I do not
think he should be confused at this mo¬
ment as to the difference between a flood-
control dam and a retention or detention
type of dam. If he is, he has no one to
blame but himself. We discussed the
matter in advance and the Senate acted
upon the amendment after discussion
was had. I do not understand what is
sought to be done now.
Mr. AIKEN. I am seeking to protect
the State of Vermont.
Mr. AUSTIN. Perhaps I am not. It
seems the insinuation is that I am not.
Mr. AIKEN. There is no insinuation.
I had hoped the Senator would say what
I have said.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, I have
nothing further to say than this: After
a great deal of discussion this amend¬
ment in its present terms, without the
words which are found in line 17 relat¬
ing to the proviso governing the cost and
the question of flood control, namely,
that the Secretary of War determines
that the cost is so much, and the amount
of flood control is so much, was agreed
to by the Senate. The change in phrase¬
ology does only what the Senator from
Massachusetts and the Senator from
Connecticut have said it would do. It
designates the person who will find the
fact; and he will find it before we con¬
clude our negotiations relating to the
number and types of dams which are in
the Vermont plan. So far as Vermont
is concerned, I leave it to the Senate
whether we are protecting Vermont in
this respect.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I wish to
ask my colleague a question. I am not
impatient when I ask whether he is sat¬
isfied that this amendment completely
protects the State of Vermont and insures
the people of the West River Valley
against being flooded out. That is all
I want to be sure of.
Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. President, in my
opinion, this is the best legislation that
we could obtain which would accommo¬
date the two purposes to which reference
has been made, namely, 75 percent of the
flood control of the single dam, and the
construction of several smaller dams
which would do less damage to the val¬
ley, within the limit of $11,000,000. I
believe the legislation is clear on that
point. I believe it is an excellent piece
of legislation in principle, and in its
specific provisions. I sincerely expect
the Federal Government to carry out the
spirit of the law. So far as Vermont is
concerned, I may say that I talked with
a representative of the Vermont State
Water Conservation Bpard today, and I
can announce that the board has no in¬
tention of causing delay which might re¬
sult in increased cost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tlie
question is on agreeing to the confer¬
ence report.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I try not
to become impatient with anyone, but
once in a while I backslide. I did not ask
any questions of my colleague in an im¬
patient frame of mind. I want the valley
in Vermont to be protected. It is a valley
which means more to me than any other
valley in the United States. I told the
people of that valley that I would do the
best I could to protect them. We have
had to fight for protection for 15 or 20
years. At one time the utility companies
wanted control of it, then the Federal
Government tried to get it from us, and
then the utility companies came again
and wanted it. When I saw the amend¬
ment in the bill as originally written, au¬
thorizing a great dam to be constructed
on the West River, and then the amend¬
ment which was put in by the Commit¬
tee on Commerce, and when I saw the
amendment which would have permitted
the generating of power on any of those
dams in the State of Vermont, it meant
just one thing to me, namely, that our
valleys were to be taken by the Federal
Government, that great dams were to be
constructed with Federal funds, and that
no power could be generated there for
the benefit of the State or the people who
live there, but that the dams could be
used only as storage reservoirs for the
benefit of private utility companies far¬
ther down the river.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Eastland in the chair) . Does the Sena¬
tor from Vermont yield to the Senator
from Massachusetts?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. Let me point out to the
junior Senator from Vermont that the
language of the amendment agreed to by
the conference committee has not
changed in any degree whatsoever the
language of the amendment adopted by
the Senate. I should like to read from
the Record what the junior Senator from
Vermont said at the time of the adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. I do not disagree with
the Senator from Massachusetts as to
the wording of the amendment, but I
will say that certainly I myself never at
any time — and I interpreted it as a lay¬
man, of course; I admit I am a layman,
I am not a lawyer — interpreted it to
mean that a large dam which would
destroy the West River Valley was au¬
thorized under any circumstances. If
the series of small dams costing a maxi¬
mum of $11,000,000 could not be built for
$11,000,000, I do not see why the Con¬
gress could not appropriate $2,000,000
mord, why the Army engineers could not
come back for more, just as they do in
the case of other dams. I do not under¬
stand why anyone should even insist that
we would have to modify the plan or
change the plan to permit the destruc-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
9408
tion of this valley. It is one of the most
beautiful valleys in the world. I dare say
the Senator has driven through the
valley, and if he has he will agree with
me.
Mr. WEEKS. Will the Senator yield
to allow me to read from the Record.
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. WEEKS. Just prior to the adop¬
tion of the amendment, and after we had
worked hard to perfect an amendment
which would be satisfactory to all parties
concerned, the junior Senator from Ver¬
mont said:
We have, and, I think, rightfully. Insisted
that such protection be afforded with a mini¬
mum of damage to our State.
It seems to me that the agreement reached
here this afternoon attains that end, and
that the program can go forward providing
for the protection of the people of Massa¬
chusetts and Connecticut, while at the same
time depriving Vermont of as little of her
resources as possible.
Mr. President, I do not think the sit¬
uation is any different today, at this
moment, from what it was when the
junior Senator from Vermont made that
statement.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, did the
Senator from Massachusetts understand
when the amendment was agreed to that
if the Secretary of War determined these
dams could not be built for $11,000,000,
he could revert to the one great storage
dam in the West River Valley? Call it
any name one may care to, that is what
it would be. It might as well be a stor¬
age dam as to destroy those villages and
ravage the countryside. I would just
as soon see water there as mud.
Mr. WEEKS. I can only say what I
said before and what the senior Senator
from Vermont has said, that if In the
final analysis nothing can be done
through the medium of a group of
smaller dams — and we asked only 75 per¬
cent of the protection — then we do re¬
vert, but the engineers of the State of
Vermont and the Army engineers will
be in constant communication on this
project. If they fall short by a small
amount. Congress can always remedy
that situation. I do not think there is
anything the Senator from Vermont
need be afraid of.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator from
Massachusetts think the Congress would
remedy the situation if the cost amount¬
ed to $12,000,000?
Mr. WEEKS. No one wants to do Ver¬
mont irreparable damage in any degree.
Mr. AIKEN. I know that was not quite
a fair question. If the Senator knew
what this valley means to me, he would
know v.'hy I feel the way I do about it.
As I stated, Mr. President, if we have
great dams built across our valleys, and
they are used for storage of water to
maintain the flow of the Connecticut, the
principal beneficiaries, of course, will be
the private utility companies down the
river. I have a list of them here on the
whole Connecticut River system.
Beginning at the upper end there are
two small dams, Lyman Falls and Ca¬
naan, one with an installed kilowatt ca¬
pacity of 1,200, and the other with an in¬
stalled’ kilowatt capacity of 1,100.
The one at Lyman Palls in 1943 gener¬
ated 6,847,000 kilowatt-hoius of electric¬
ity, and the one at Canaan 5,847,000.
Those are small dams, owned by the Pub¬
lic Service Co. of New Hampshire.
Then as we go down the river, we come
to the larger ones, first the one at Wilder,
owned by the Bellows Falls Hydroelectric
Corporation. That has a capacity of
5,220 kilowatts, and in 1943 generated
33,192,000 kilowatt-hom’s. It is contem¬
plated by the utility company which
owns that dam to increase the output
about five times.
Then there is a dam at Bellows Falls,
a still larger one, which last year gen¬
erated 265,908,000 kilowatt-hours of
electricity. Those dams are owned by
the Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Corpo¬
ration, a subsidiary of the New England
power group.
Then there are the Comerford Dam,
the Vernon Dam, and the Mclndoes
Dam, which last year generated over
500,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity.
They are owned by the Connecticut River
Power Co., another subsidiary of the New
England power group.
Then there is the Western Massachu¬
setts Electric Co., which owns two dams,
the Cabot Dam, and the Turners Falls
No. 1 Dam, which together generated
about 300,000,000 kilowatt-hours of
electricity last year.
The city of Holyoke has a small
municipal plant, which gnerated 12,-
301,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity last
year.
The Holyoke Water Power Co. — and I
do not know to what group, if any, it
belongs — has two plants on the Con¬
necticut River generating 49,000,000 kilo¬
watt-hours and 20,000,000 kilowatt-
hours, respectively.
With the exception of the dam owned
by the city of Holyoke, these dams are
owned by private utilities.
I do not object to the private utilities
getting an increased flow of water on
the Connecticut River, but I do object
to any attempt on the part of anyone to
prevent the generating of power from
our small dams up in Vermont.
As I have said, I have told the people
of the West River Valley that I would
fight just as long as I could to save that
valley for them. I say again that when
this amendment was agreed to, I
could not interpret it as it has since been
interpreted. I suppose it is because I
have a layman’s mind. I thought we
v/ere prohibiting the construction of a
great dam on the West River. It seems,
however, that as it is Interpreted now we
have prohibited it only under certain
conditions.
As I have said, the War Department
has already estimated that the dam at
Williamsville will cost in excess of 30
percent more than the estimate they had
last spring, and it seems reasonable to
believe that the smaller dams might also
increase in cost. With the cost of labor
going up, and the cost of materials likely
to rise, I cannot understand why there
is a limitation put on this cost. The
Senate certainly thought it was author¬
izing a series of smaller dams for this
valley, this valley which is desirable as a
place in which to live, a place in which
to build homes, as a great many people
from outside the State have done during
DeCEMBl ^"^0]
the last few years. It is a fairly good
agricultural valley.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. CONNALLY. Does the Senator
want us to defeat the conference report?
Mr. AIKIEN. I should like to have the
conferees agree.
Mr. CONNALLY, That . is not the
question.
Mr. AIKEN. I understand that.
Mr. CONNALLY. The question is.
Shall we agree to the conference report?
Does the Senator want us to reject the
conference report?
Mr. AIKEN. I know I cannot have
the conference report rejected.
Mr. CONNALLY. I am merely asking
what the Senator’s purpose is.
Mr. AIKEN. This matter should be
cleared up. The Senators from Vermont
were very much pleased when the Senate
adopted the amendment. They thought
they had achieved protection for the West
River Valley.
Mr. CONNALLY. Will the Senator
yield further?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator says he
knows he cannot defeat the conference
report. If he cannot, what is the use of
attempting to kill the report? We must
either adopt the report or kill the report.
Mr. AIKEN. I am not trying to kill
it. I want Senators to know what they
are doing to that valley.
Mr. CONNALLY. I do not know any¬
thing in the world about the valley except
that it is a beautiful valley. I have driven
up and down the valley. 'The scenery is
wonderful. But how that has anything
to do with the conference report I do not
know.
Mr. AIKEN. I realize I cannot kill the
conference report, but I want to make it
clear that I never in the world placed the
interpretation on the amendment which
has been put upon it since it went to con¬
ference. If any such interpretation was
put upon it before, I was not aware of it.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I do not
want to kill the conference report, but I
do want the Senator from Vermont to
make his position clear. He is not kill¬
ing any time at all. I want him to take
all the time he needs to present his case.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, so I say
that I hope the State and the Army en¬
gineers will agree that this protection
can be afforded by the smaller dams, and
be kept within the $11,000,000. I know
it is too late to change the amendment
now, but I will say that if any attempt is
made to take from Vermont her re¬
sources or to destroy her valleys without
giving back any compensation whatso¬
ever, I shall fight every such attempt as
strongly as I can.
It is almost beyond my understanding,
Mr. President, that without hesitation
we struck out a dam in North Carolina.
Without any hesitation the Senate struck
out a dam which the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. B.uley] v'anted eliminated
from the bill. There were no conditions
about that except that a resurvey could
be made. We struck out a dam in West
Virginia without any question. We
struck out one in Indiana, as I recall.
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 9409
without qualifications. Yet there is ob¬
jection to striking out unequivocally the
one dam in Vermont which would do a
tremendous amount of harm to my State.
I know that I cannot kill the amendment
now. I have nothing more to say, but I
sincerely hope that the big dam which
would destroy my valley, never will be
built.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report on House bill 4485.
The report was iigreed to.
j ESTATE OF CHARLES NOAH SHIPP,
I DECEASED
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, on the 22d
day of June the Senate passed Senate
bill. 1464, which had been introduced by
theXdistinguished senior Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. Barkley], authorizing
the appropriation of $7,500 for the relief
of thaestate of one Charles Noah Shipp,
deceased. When that bill went to the
House ^ Representatives, instead of the
House acting on the Senate bill, which
had been passed last June, it passed a
House bill identical with the Senate bill,
except that the House bill provides dam¬
ages in the amount of $5,361 instead of
$7,500.
I ask that the House bill he laid be¬
fore the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be¬
fore the Senate a bill (H. R. 3791) for
the relief of the estate of Charles Noah
Shipp, deceased, which was read twice
by its title.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask for the
present cbnsideration of the House bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
There being no objection, the bill (H.
R. 3791) was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. HILL. I move that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of execu¬
tive business.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration of
executive business.
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OP COMMITTEES
The following favorable reports of
nominations wfere submitted:
By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee
on the Judiclafy:
Henry A. Scdbiweinhaut, of Maryland, to be
an associate Justice of the District Court of
the United States for the District of Colum¬
bia, vice Oscfer R. Luhring, deceased.
By Mr. MoKELLAR, from the Committee on
Post Office^ and Post Roads :
Sundry postmasters.
The presiding officer (Mr. Mc-
Kellar- in the chair). If there be no
furth» reports of committees, the clerk
will state the nominations on the Calen¬
dar.^'
^/DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
/The legislative clerk read the nomina¬
tion of Mrs. Grace Gavin Lewis, to be
register of the land office. The Dalles,
. Oreg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
bbjection, the nomination is confirmed.
\ POSTMASTERS
^le legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations of postmasters.
Mr. HILL. I ask that the nominations
of postmasters be confirmed en bloc.
Tl^e PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations are confirmed
en bloc.
THE NAVY
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the Navy.
Mr. HILL. I ask that the nominations
in the Navy be confirmed en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations are confirmed
en bloc.
That completes the Executive Calen¬
dar.
Mr. HILL. I ask that the President be
notified forthwith of all nominations this
day confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the President will be notified
forthwith.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
_ \,
Mr. WHITE. As in legislative session,
may I inquire of the distinguished acting
majority leader whether he can tell us
what will be before the Senate tomorrow?
Mr. HILL. I will say to the distin¬
guished Senator from Maine that the
crop-insurance bill will be the pending
business when the>Benate reconvenes to¬
morrow. As soon as we can dispose of
that bill, I shall ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the considera¬
tion of unobjected-to bills on the calen¬
dar, beginning at the point where we
left off at the last call of the calendar.
Mr. WHITE. I thank the Senator.
RECESS
Mr. HILL. As in legislative session, I
move that the Senate take a recess imtil
12 o’clock noon tomorrow.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 5
o’clock and 57 minutes p. m.) the Senate
took a recess until tomorrow, Wednes¬
day, December 13, 1944, at 12 o’clock
meridian.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate December 12 (legislative day
of November 21), 1944:
Department of the Interior
REGISTER OF THE LAND OFFICE
Mrs. Grace Gavin Lewis to be register of
the land office at The Dalles, Oreg.
In the Navy
TO EE VICE admirals IN THE NAVY, FOR TEM¬
PORARY SERVICE, TO RANK FROM THE DATES
INDICATED
Samuel M. Robinson, from January 81,
1642.
Willis A. Lee, Jr., from March 21, 1944.
Theodore S. Wilkinson, from August 12,
1944.
TO BE REAR ADMIRALS IN THE NAVY, FOR TEM¬
PORARY SERVICE, TO RANK FROM THE DATES
INDICATED
Ralph S. Riggs, from June' 16, 1943.
Ralph E. Jennings, from September 6, 1943.
TO BE A COMMODORE IN THE NAVY, FOR TEM¬
PORARY SERVICE
Bernard L. Austin, to continue while serv¬
ing as Assistant Chief of Staff to the Com¬
mander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet
and Pacific Ocean areas.
TO BE PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST,^WITH RANK
OP VICE admiral
Rear Admiral Wilson Brown, when retired
on December 1, 1944.
Postmasters
ILLINOIS
Emma L. Marinko, Alhambra.
Clarence J. Hendron, Clifton.
Hugh Thompson, Dwight.
Ralph O. Johns, Madison,.
WUliam Herman Truebe, Pocahontas.
Carroll E. Taylor, Shipman.
LOUISIANA
Mollie E. Walther, Gibson.
MASSACHUSETTS
Arthur K. Bates, Danvers. .,
MISSISSIPPI
Norma B. Johnston, Enid.
new/ YORK
Mable G. Evans, Btanchport.
Agnes C. VanDemark, Brooktondale.
Leo F. Sellers, Bvirke.
Hildege N. Cataracte, Cadyville.
Francis McDonald, Carle Place.
Hollis F. Stowell, Cassadaga.
Anna V. Herron, Centereach.
Thomas E. Hai/ens, Center Moriches.
Vivian E. Shaw, Chafee.
Elmer B. Weston, Chemung.
Alfred C. Brondstatter, Cold Brook.
Ruth Babcock Henry, Congers.
Nellie S. Andrews, Conklin.
Anna H. CaSlahan, Constable.
Carl F. Setbel, Durhamville.
Emil Peter Luc, East Williston.
Milo J. Delong, Ellenburg Center.
Mary A. Murphy, Forestport.
John A. Bush, Hartwlck.
Pauline Tralnor, Heuvelton.
Frances A. Kinney, Locke.
Frank H. Tymeson, Maine.
Ragnhild O. Chester, Mastic Beach.
Edward Phillips, Middleport.
Harry B. Ecker, Mount Tremper.
Francis T. Callan, Mumford.
Mamie C. Foley, Ontario Center.
Helen W. Aumick, Pine City.
George A. Lortscher, Pittsford.
Eunice H. Raynor, Quogue.
Alice M. Smith, Rlchford.
Alice E. Colburn, Rose.
WiJliam E. Worcester, Rotterdam Junction.
W/ Paul Blancher, South Laming.
Helen M. Cronk, Staatsburg.
j6seph F. Marshall, Waterloo,
Lula E. Joyce, West Hurley.
Louise Knapp, Wolcott.
OKLAHOMA
Sloan S. Stringer^ Ochelata.
Paul R. PMlfs, Randlett.
PENNSYLVANIA
Laurence A. Gossman, North Girard.
TENNESSEE
Paul E. Sams, Erwin.
! i
i
House of Representatives
The House met at 12 o’clock noon, and
was called to order by the Speaker.
Rev. Bernard Braskamp, D. D., pastor
of Gunton Temple Memorial Presby¬
terian Church, Washington, D. C., offered
the following prayer:
Most merciful and gracious God, we
have been privileged to enter upon a new
day filled with many blessings and
ladened with tasks and responsibilities
which challenge the consecration of our
noblest manhood and womanhood. May
there never be an hour when we shall
be recreant to any duty or turn away
cowardly from any difficulty.
Grant that in our need of guidance and
strength we may avail ourselves humbly
and confidently of those resources which
,Thou hast placed at our disposal. May
we be inspired to think clearly and to
act courageously in achieving the glori¬
ous victory of those ideals and principles
of justice and righteousness which Thou
hast ordained.
We pray that our President, our Speak¬
er, and all the chosen Representatives of
our beloved country may be the honored
instruments of the Lord whereby the
spirit of good will and brotherhood shall
be mediated to the heart of humanity.
Help us to pray and labor more fervently
for that blessed time when men every¬
where shall dwell together in the fellow¬
ship and friendship of the Prince of
Peace.
Hear us in the name of the Christ our
Saviour. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes¬
terday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate, by Mr.
Frazier, its legislative clerk, announced
that the Senate had passed without
amendment bills of the House of the fol¬
lowing titles:
H. R. 1033. An act to suspend the effective¬
ness during the existing national emergency
of the tariff duty on coconuts; and
H. R. 5408. An act to amend the Mustering-
out Payment Act of 1944, to provide a method
for accomplishing certain musterlng-out pay¬
ments on behalf of mentally disabled veterans,
and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed a bill of the following
title, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested:
S. 1159. An act creating the City of Clinton.
Bridge Commission r.nd authorizing said com¬
mission and its successors to acquire by pur¬
chase or condemnation and to construct,
maintain, and operate a bridge or bridges
across the Mississippi River at or near Clin¬
ton, Iowa, and at or near Fulton, Ill.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the amendments of the
Tuesday, December 12, 1944
House to a bill of the Senate of the follow¬
ing title:
S. 2019. An act to establish the grade of
Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy, and
for other purposes.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend by own re¬
marks in the Record and to include there¬
in an address delivered by the Honorable
Manley O. Hudson on the international
law of the future.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ver¬
mont?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that at the conclusion
of the address of the gentlewoman from
Ohio [Mrs. Bolton] this afternoon I may
be permitted to address the House for 10
minutes.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ver¬
mont?
There was no objection.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani¬
mous consent to extend my own remarks
in the Appendix of the Record and to in¬
clude therein an article by Lester Allen
which appeared in the Boston Post last
Sunday.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, ask
unanimous consent to extend my own
remarks in the Record and to include a
poem.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ne¬
vada?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to extend my own
remarks in three instances in the Record
and to include an article from the Dallas
Nev/s, the East Texas Chamber of Com¬
merce Journal, and a letter from General
Hines.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in the Record and include several
editorials.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ala¬
bama?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Miss STANLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in the Record in two instances:
in one to include an editorial concerning
former Secretary of State Cordell Hull
and in the other a statement on the
Postal Service employees’ increase in
salary.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentlewoman from
New York?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re¬
marks in the Record and include a letter
showing the plight of the farmer and the
need of work clothing and gloves.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Kan¬
sas?
There was no objection.
[The matter referred to appears in the
Appendix.]
THE LATE CHARLES D. MILLARD
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Reed],
,Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker,
It is with a feeling of profound sorrow
that I have just learned of the tragic
death of a former Member of this House,
the Honorable Charles D. Millard, Re¬
publican, of Tarry town, Westchester
County, N. Y., who served in the Seventy-
second, Seventy-third, Seventy-fourth,
and Seventy-fifth Congresses from the
Twenty-fifth Congressional District of
New York. Those of us who have been
here for some years remember Charlie
D. Millard as one of the most popular
men in this House. I can almost see him
now, for he invariably sat right here
in the front row, and he made it his busi¬
ness to see that the House was in order.
If the House was ever out of order, he
made the point of order to see that it was
in order. He rendered a fine service to
his district, and was afterward honored
by his people as surrogate of Westchester
County. He had been retired from his
judicial position because of having
reached the age limit. He served in Con¬
gress with distinction. I sympathize
9410
1944
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
9413
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Was
there any reason given to the committee
for the language in section 11, wliich I
believe was also in the House bill, that
prohibits the use of Federal funds for
the relocation of highways giving access
to airports?
I have in mind that we have two air¬
ports in Connecticut, owned by the
State, in connection with which for the
duration they have had to close one of
the through State highways.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I may say
to the gentleman from Connecticut that
when the bill passed the House it con-
' tained no provision for flight strips; we
have eliminated that from the bill. The
Senate biU contained a provision for
flight strips. The conference report does
away with the flight strips, providing
simply for the arrangement or concur¬
rence, we might say, of the two organiza¬
tions with reference to the reconstruction
or relocation of any highway giving ac¬
cess to an airport.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Will it
be possible, if the Public Roads Adminis-
' ' tration approves, for the States to use
Federal- aid funds on State highways
giving access to an airport?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. Yes ; I think
that is correct.
Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield.
Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. As I un¬
derstand, the bill contains three differ¬
ent formulas. The flrst is for Federal-
aid roads where the formula remains as it
was, one-third, one-third, and one-third;
secondly, there is the farm-to-market
roads, where the formula has been
changed. Will the gentleman explain it?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. It too is one-
third, one-third, and one-third, only we
use the coimty roads instead of the State
ITOHrdS
* Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. The
length of the county roads rather than
the length of the State roads.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. The gentle¬
man is correct.
Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. Then in
the cgse of urban roads it is on a popu¬
lation basis only and does not take into
consideration either of the other ele¬
ments.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. It takes
into consideration the population of all
cities over 5,000.
Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. I am a
little afraid we are getting away from
the old formula, one-third population,
one-third length of highway, and one-
third area which was in the original act
of 1916. We have just in recent years
begun to depart from that formula, have
v/e not?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. No; we
have departed from it many times. In
some of our bills we have apportioned
one-eiglTth on population. We have not
held exactly to the formula,
Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. I
thought this was a recent innovation.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. It is, so far
as apportioning money directly to mb'n
areas is concerned; that is new, but the
committees in each House felt it was ab¬
solutely necessary to give the cities sep¬
arate treatment.
Mr. LUTHER A. JOHNSON. How
much money will the farm-to-markct
roads get under this bill?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. One hun¬
dred ‘and fifty million dollars per an¬
num.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield.
Mr. BONNER. I wish to ask the
chairman if there has been any change
whatsoever in the requirement of match¬
ing funds allocated to the States?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. No; I think
not. They are required to match funds
on a 50-50 basis.
Mr. BONNER. I call attention to sec¬
tion 8:
With the approval of the Federal Works
Administrator, not to exceed 114 percent of
the amount apportioned for any year to any
State out of the Federal Highway Act, as
amended and supplemented, except sections
3 and 23 thereof.
It states may be matched or may not
be matched. What does that mean? It
reads:
Shall hereafter be used with or without
State funds for surveys —
And so forth. That is with matching
or without matching.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is
where they used it simply for planning.
Mr. BONNER. Which States will be
required to match and which not?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. As I under¬
stand, none of the States will be required
to match.
Mr. BONNER. There will be no
matching requirement whatsoever for
planning.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. The gentle¬
man is correct.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen¬
tleman yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield.
Mr. CASE. First, I wish to express my
appreciation to the conferees in retain¬
ing the amendment authorizing con¬
struction and maintenance of Indian
reservation roads, which was adopted
when the bill was before the House.
Now, then, I wish to ask the chairman
the reason for reducing from 2 years to 1
the period of time in which a State may
match its allotments of Federal aid.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. We have
not done that; they stiU have 2 years.
The way we had it before it was on the
date of apportionment. Under the bill
as agreed to in conference the States
will really have 2 years.
Mr. CASE. I think it is well to have
that explanation in the Record because
the conference report changes the lan¬
guage in paragraph (d) of section 4 from
2 years to 1 year and on the surface it
would appear to be reducing the matching
period that much.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. It is appor¬
tioned every year. We think as it is now
we have really given the States 2 full
years.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. There was some
question and the language of the confer¬
ence clarified it so as to make it definite
with reference to the extended time.
Mr. RANKIN. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. RANKIN. I refer to subsection
(b) of Section 10, where we doubled the
amount of funds for the construction and
maintenance of parkways, such as the
Natchez Trace, Blue Ridge, and so forth,
raising it from $15,000,000 to $30,000,000.
I understand the conferees have agreed
to that amendment?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is cor¬
rect.
Mr. RANKIN. Just as it was adopted
by the House?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is cor-
Mr. O’CONNOR. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. O’CONNOR. It' occurs to me that
the committee has done splendid work
and the gentleman is to be congratulated
on the work he has done in connection
with procuring funds for roads in States
like my own State and his State, follow¬
ing long and extensive hearings. Re¬
ferring to paragraph (b) on page 3 of
the report where it says “one-third in
the ratio which the area of each State
bears to the total area of all of the
States,” I feel confident the gentleman
has made a study of just what that
means.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is the
law as it has been since 1916.
Mr. O’CONNOR. What proportion of
that fund for feeder roads and county
roads would the States have to provide?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. They match
this on a 50-50 basis, all of it.
Mr. O’CONNOR. The whole works?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. All of it; yes.
Mr. 'THOMASON. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THOMASON. Did the conferees
retain the provision about Federal aid
for approach roads to national parks?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. Yes.
Mr. THOMASON. In those cases the
Federal Government pays the entire
amount?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is cor-
r0ct/
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Will the gentle¬
man yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Can the Chair¬
man assure me that States like Oklahoma
that have set up their tax structure along
certain lines for a number of years will
not be affected?
Mr. ROBINJON of Utah. Under this
bill they are treated the same r.s they
have been treated under previous high¬
way bills.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. IV ill the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Do I
understand the report correctly that as
No. 17‘
9
December 12
9414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
agreed upon not more than one-third
of the cost of rights-of-way will be paid
by Federal funds?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is cor¬
rect. Under the House bill we paid one-
half of the costs of the rights-of-way
and under the Senate bill none was pro¬
vided. This is a compromise between
the House and Senate bills.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Is that
not going to make it difficult for con¬
gested areas to provide their part of the
funds where the cost of rights-of-way is
very, very important and mighty expen¬
sive?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I agree with
the gentleman and I was in sympathy,
of course, with the 5i percent, but the
Senate did not provide for any Federal
contribution and we thought it was bet¬
ter to get one-third than nothing at all.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. From
zero to 33^3 percent, I suppose is a good
compromise.
Mr. IZAC. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. IZAC. Will the gentleman assure
the House that the location of the high¬
ways under this allocation of funds will
be up to the highway commissions of the
various States?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. The bill so
provides. There is no question about
that. The State highway commissions
will have the say as to the location of
the roads in the various States.
Mr. HARRIS. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HARRIS. As I understand it, the
original language of the bill has been
adopted with reference to when the bill
will become effective; namely, at the
termination of the present emergency?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. We adopted
that with an amendraent. We have
changed it somewhat, but it has the ef¬
fect of our amendment.
Mr. HARRIS. It will be following the
termination of the present emergency
and not a specific time as was provided
by the amendment offered in the House?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is cor¬
rect. ■
Mr. KEBFE. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KEtFE. I have not had time to
read this report in its entirety. Will the
gentlemafi state whether or not the pro¬
vision inserted in the House bill provid¬
ing agailist diversion of State taxes for
highway purposes, gasoline taxes, and so
forth, is incorporated in the present bill
and wljat the effect of that is?
Mr.feCBINSON of Utah. We have
maintained the same law. We have kept
the provision in and really made it apply
to alifcf the funds, and the same law with
respact to diversion that now exists will
appw to the funds carried in this bill. ;
m-. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gerwleman yield?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. I yield to
th* gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JENKINS. I have in my hand a
copy cf the bill, and on page 14 I find
this language which I do not quite under¬
stand;
\ The authorization for the first post-war
fi^al year shall be apportioned among the
States within 30 days from the passage of
thlsiact.
That does not mean that you arp go¬
ing to pay out any of this money within
30 dayi from the passage of this act,
does it? '
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. It is just
apportioned.
Mr. JENKHNS. Wliat does the word
“authorization” in this section mean?
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. It means
that we tell the Commissioner of Public
Roads that he can tell the States just
how much they will receive under this
bill.
Mr. JENKINS. In other words, with¬
in 30 days after this law is passed, it
will be Mr. MacDonald’s duty to compute
what each State is entitled to, and to
publish this authorization or allocation.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. That is
right.
Mr. JEbiKINS. I thank the gentle¬
man.
Mr. ROBINSON of Utah. Mr. Speak¬
er, I move the previous question on the
conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
FLOOD CONTROL, PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker,
I call up the conference report on the
bill (H. R. 4485) authorizing the con¬
struction of certain public works on
rivers and harbors for flood control, and
for other purposes, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement on the part
of the managers of the House be read in
lieu of the report.
For the information of the Members,
I might state that the report is found
on page 9309 of the Record.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis¬
sissippi?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Decem¬
ber 11, 1944.)
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker,
the House will recall that this bill passed
the House on May 9 with authorizations
for flood-control works for pqst-war c.on-
struction aggregating $810,000,000. It
passed the Senate on December 1. When
passed by the Senate, it included projects
on which the Chief of Engineers had
submitted favorable reports that had
been transmitted to the Congress since
the passage of the bill in the House and
before the report of the Senate Com¬
mittee on Commerce.
The conference agreement eliminates
four projects that were in the bill as it
passed the House or as it was reported
to the Senate. It eliminates for further
consideration the Yadkin-Pee Dee proj¬
ect in North Carolina, at an estimated
cost of around $11,000,000. It eliminates
the reservoir at Raystown, at an esti¬
mated cost of $21,000,000, It eliminates
the Rawlesburg Reservoir on the Cheat
River, at an estimated cost of $30,000,-
000, and the improvement along the
Youghiogheny, at an estimated cost of
$38,000,000. This was done on the theory,
after further consideration, that a ma¬
jority of these projects probably have
more power than flood control in them,
and on the further theory that interested
areas desire a review and further study
of these three projects.
The House will also recall, Mr. Speaker,
that in the consideration of this bill both
in the House and the Senate the chief
controversy centered aroimd the proj¬
ects for the improvement of the Missouri
Basin.
After the passage of this bill and be¬
fore the final passage in the Senate, there
was a reconciliation of the views of the
Chief of Engineers and the Director of
the Bureau of Reclamation, and that
reconciliation was transmitted to the
Congress by the President on November
27, 1944, after the bill was reported in
the Senate, and it is found in House
Document 784, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session.
The conference agreement contains
the reconciliation of the views as between
these two agencies of the Government
and provides for the construction of the
works that are predominantly flood con¬
trol by the Chief of Engineers and for
the construction of the works that are
predominantly reclamation by the Bu¬
reau of Reclamation. In a word, the
conference agreement retained the so-
called O’Mahoney amendment embodied
in the bill as it passed the Senate, agreed
to, as we understand, generally, by all of
the conflicting interests in the Missouri
River Basin. It retains the authoriza¬
tion of $200,000,000 for flood control work
under the Chief of Engineers as passed
by the House and it provides for an au¬
thorization of $200,000,000 for reclama¬
tion projects under the Bureau of Recla¬
mation.
The House will also recall that when
this bill passed the House there was no
provision for the present disposition of
power generated in any of the dams au¬
thorized to be constructed by the War
Department. There was a great deal of
debate in the Senate with respect to that
question. The so-called Bailey power
amendment was debated at length. The
conference agreement provides for the
disposal by the Secretary of the Interior
of the surplus power generated at the
projects under the control of the War
Department in substantially the same
language 'Which now obtains in legisla¬
tion previously passed by the Congress
for the disposal of power at Bonneville,
at Fort Peck, and under Executive orders
for the disposal of power in the South¬
west at the reservoirs at Dennison, Pen¬
sacola, and Norfork, with amendments to
the language as agreed to in the confer¬
ence to the Senate amendmeni. Three
amendments were agreed to in the con¬
ference. The first provides that the rates
shall give consideration to the fiost of
producing and transmitting power so
that there may be the recovery of rea¬
sonable amortization of the cost. Sec¬
ondly, it provides that these funds that
are derived from the sale of power shall
1944
9415
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
be deposited to the credit of miscel¬
laneous receipts in the Treasury. And
the third provides that the provision for
disposition and for transmission lines
shall be by appropriations to be made by
Congress. It also provides that trans¬
mission lines and related facilities can be
acquired by purchase or other agree¬
ment.
There was another matter, Mr. Speak¬
er, that was in controversy to some
degree in the House and to a greater
degree in the Senate, and that was the
authorizations with respect to dams in
the Connecticut River Basin. The lan¬
guage as agreed to in the amendment
of the Senate by the interested Senators
and Representatives from the New Eng¬
land area is substantially retained in the
conference agreement.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there
are included in the bill as recommended
by the Chief of Engineers, between the
passage of the bill by the House and the
final passage of it by the Senate, by Sen¬
ate- amendments, projects aggregating
about $185,000,000 for construction under
funds hereafter to be appropriated. The
bill as it finally passed the Senate carried
an authorization of $959,465,000. As
stated in the conference agreement, the
authorizations aggregate $950,000,000, a
reduction of substantially $10,000,000
from the bill as passed by the Senate.
The projects in Senate amendments em¬
braced in the conference agreement are
in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers, in about two
instances being substantially in accord
with his recommendations.
I extend by saying that the House
agreed to amendment No. 1, as modified,
by eliminating the first paragraph,
which is the so-called McClellan amend¬
ment in the Senate with respect to the
declaration of policy, which declaration
may be changed by subsequent legisla¬
tion, as a part of the compromise agreed
to by the conflicting interests in the Mis¬
souri River Basin. This amendment
provides for a recognition of the in¬
terests and rights of the States for a
review of reports of the Chief of Engi¬
neers and of the Secretary of the Interior
by the States affected and for comments
by such affected States, their written
views becoming a part of the report.
This amendment provides that in con¬
nection with the operation and mainte¬
nance of projects authorized in this
act, the use of water of the Western
States for navigation shall not conflict
with beneficial consumptive use of water
for domestic, municipal, stock-water,
irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes.
The amendment thus becomes section 1
of the bill as agreed to in conference and
is intended to protect and safeguard the
rights of the States and at the same time
to promote flood control and navigation
under the commerce clause of the Con¬
stitution.
Amendment No. 18, now section 9 (a)
of the bill as agreed to in conference,
authorizes the comprehensive plans for
the development of the Missouri River
Basin proposed by the War Department
and the Department of the Interior as
coordinated by the joint report of the
Chief of Engineers and the Commissioner
of Reclamation in Senate Document No.
247, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, and it authorizes the appropria¬
tion of $200,000,000 to be expended by
the Corps of Engineers and $200,000,000
to be expended by the Secretary of the
Interior for the partial accomplishment
of the works authorized in this section,
to be undertaken by the Corps of Engi¬
neers and by the Secretary of the In¬
terior. This section replaces the item in
the House-approved bill which author¬
ized $200,000,000 for the partial accom¬
plishment of the comprehensive plan for
flood control in the Missouri River Basin.
The Senators recently accepted an
amendment in substantially the same
language in the river and harbor bill
now pending in the Senate to provide
duplicate authorization for the coordina¬
tion for the comprehensive plan for the
Missouri River Basin. I emphasize that
such duplicating authority is undesirable.
I report that the Senate conferees have
given assurance that if this conference
report is approved by the House and
Senate, the duplicating item will be
eliminated from the river and harbor
bill.
In connection with amendment No. 1,
which has become section 1 of the bill as
agreed to in conference, in further pro¬
tection of the rights and privileges of
the States, in the event either the af¬
fected State or the Secretary of War
makes objections to the plans or pro¬
posals of the Secretary of the Interior,
his proposal shall not be deemed feasible,
and the proposed work shall not be
deemed authorized except upon the ap¬
proval by an act of Congress, and sec¬
tion 9 (a) of the Reclamation Project
Act of 1939 and section 3 (a) of the act
of August 11, 1939, as amended, are ac¬
cordingly amended by said amendment
No. 1, which has become section 1 of the
bill.
Section 9 (a), authorizing the Mis¬
souri River Basin improvement, pro¬
vides, as I have indicated, that the works
that are predominantly flood control
shall be constructed by the Chief of En¬
gineers, and the works that are predom¬
inantly reclamation shall be constructed
by the Bureau of Reclamation.
In connection with the Connecticut
River Basin covered by amendment No.
26, agreed to as modified by stipulating
that the Secretary of War is to deter¬
mine the total cost of the alternate plan
for the so-called Williamsville Reservoir,
the amendment authorizes the substitu¬
tion of an alternate plan for the Wil¬
liamsville Reservoir provided the Chief
of Engineers finds that the total cost of
the alternate plan will not exceed $11,-
000,000, and provided the Secretary of
War and Chief of Engineers approve the
alternate plan. The effect of the
amendment is that if the so-called eight-
reservoir alternate plan does not satisfy
the requirements of the amendment, the
Chief of Engineers is authorized to pro¬
ceed with the construction of the Wil¬
liamsville Reservoir for flood control.
The further effect of the amendment is
that a subsequent report and authoriza¬
tion by Congress must be made before
the projects at Cambridgeport, Ludlow,
South Tunbridge, and Gaysville can be
built. The amendment prohibits the
construction of a dam or reservoir at
the Sugar Hill site on the Ammonoosuc
River, but it is understood that an al¬
ternate site is under study and, if found
feasible, authority exists for the initia¬
tion of such a project.
The Savannah River project is em¬
braced in amendment No. 32, inserted by
the Senate, and it approves a compre¬
hensive development of the Savannah
River Basin for flood control and other
purposes and authorizes the construction
of the Clark Hill Reservoir on the Savan¬
nah River in South Carolina and
Georgia. In the pending river and har¬
bor bill, H. R. 3961, as passed by the
House, there is an item for the Savannah
River, the effect of which is to provide
duplicate authorization for the Clark
Hill Reservoir. Such duplication is un¬
desirable, and the Senate conferees have
given assurance that if this report is
approved by the House and Senate this
duplicating item will also be eliminated
from the river and harbor bill.
The conference report eliminates
Senate amendment No. 36 to modify the
Trinidad project to include upstream
reservoirs. The conferees believe that a
modification of the amendment adopted
by the Senate should be undertaken
only after a full report has been sub¬
mitted by the Chief of Engineers and
authorization by Congress. The appro¬
priate investigation and report to Con¬
gress are now in progress.
Senate amendment No. 44 was elimi¬
nated, inasmuch as the Chief of Engi¬
neers is now making an investigation of
possible alternate projects and, if found
feasible, will recommend them as sub¬
stitutes for the Tuttle Creek project. If
a substitute is not recommended and
adopted and if alternates are found to be
infeasible, the construction of the Tuttle
Creek Reservoir to protect the Kansas
Citys remains. In other words, the Tut¬
tle Creek project will remain author¬
ized and be available for selection for
future construction.
As I have indicated, amendment No. 9,
as modified, authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to dispose of electric energy
generated at reservoir projects under the
control of the War Department and not
required in the operation of such proj¬
ects. The Secretary of the Interior is
authorized from appropriations to be
made by Congress to construct or acquire
by purchase or other agreement only
such transmission lines and facilities as
may be made necessary in order to make
the power available in wholesale quanti¬
ties for sale on fair and reasonable terms.
The rates are td be approved by the
Federal Power Commission. The for¬
mula established by law for the Bonne¬
ville project is followed so that the rate
schedules shall be drawn with regard to
recovering to the Government the cost
of producing and transmitting the elec¬
tric energy, including the amortization
of the capital investment allocated to
power over a reasonable period of years.
Preference is given to public bodies and
cooperatives. Sound business principles
are to govern the transmission and dis¬
posal of surplus power. Congress retains
control over the construction and acquir-
9416
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
December 12
ing of transmission lines and related
facilities, inasmuch as funds must be
provided hereafter by Congress for such
lines and facilities. They may be con¬
structed, but they can only be acquired
by purchase or other agreement.
The bill as passed by the House in¬
cluded the sdil erosion and water-flow
retardation projects favorably recom¬
mended in reports submitted to Congress
by the Department of Agriculture. Sub¬
sequent favorable reports have been sub¬
mitted to Congress since the bill passed
the House and were included by Senate
amendments. The conference agree¬
ment authorizes the approval of the
projects as recommended by the Depart¬
ment of Agriculture. The bill provides
that the balance remaining from the au¬
thorization of $10,000,000 in section 7 of
the Flood Control Act approved June 28,
1938, shall be available for the prosecu¬
tion of the works authorized for con¬
struction by the Departm.ent of Agricul¬
ture with the provision that not more
than 20 percent of the authorization is
made available on any one project.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi.
M-. RANKIN. I want to interrogate
the gentleman from Mississippi, my dis¬
tinguished colleague, about amendment
No. 9, 1 believe it is, with reference to the
disposition of the electric power gen¬
erated at these projects.
Is this amendment as it is printed in
the copy of the bill now available to the
Members, the complete amendment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. As I stated a
few moments ago, that amendment em¬
braces language as it passed the Senate,
or the Senate amendment, with three
modifications which I mentioned in de¬
tail. The first modification was that all
moneys derived from the sale of power by
the Secretary of the Interior shall be de¬
posited in the general fund of the Treas¬
ury. The second amendment was that
he could acquire transmission lines or
related facilities by agreement with the
owner — by purchase and by agreement
with the owner. The third amendment
to the Senate amendment, agreed to in
the conference contains tliis language
that does not appear in the Senate
amendment;
Rate schedules shall be drawn having re¬
gard to the recovery (upon the basis of the
application of such rate schedules to the
capacity of the electric facilities of the proj¬
ects) of the cost of producing and trans¬
mitting such electric energy, including the
amortization of the capital investment allo¬
cated to power over a reasonable period of
years.
That is the identical language that
Is contained in legislation heretofore
passed by this body for the disposal of
power at Bonneville.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, right on that
point I want to ask the gentleman an¬
other question. I thoroughly agree with
that principle because it is fundamen¬
tally sound. That provision applies to
all projects provided for in the bill where
power is to be generated, does it? '
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Wherever gen¬
erated by the War Department.
Mr. RANKIN. All projects provided
for in this bill?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is, that
are constructed by the War Department.
There may be in some of the reclama¬
tion projects power developed that will
be disposed of in accordance with exist¬
ing reclamation law.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, right there is one
trouble we are up against. The coopera¬
tive power associations are having to pay
higher rates for power generated at
dams built by the Bureau of Reclama¬
tion than they are paying at other dams
constructed by the Federal Government.
I wondered why an exception was made
as to them.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. We have made
no exception. This bill deals with proj¬
ects that are constructed by the Corps
of Engineers. We have limited our
amendment, and I think properly, to
those projects.
Mr. RANKIN. This applies to all pro¬
posed projects on the Missouri River, as
I understand?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; to be con¬
structed by the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. RANKIN. And also on the Con¬
necticut River?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; to be con¬
structed by the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. RANKIN. In other words, at all
projects provided for in this bill, which
generate electricity, the electricity is to
be turned over to the Department of the
Interior to be distributed to public bodies,
which, of course, includes municipal
bodies which own their own facilities —
I presume that is right; is it not?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; to facil¬
ities owned by the Federal Government,
public bodies, cooperatives, and privately
owned companies.
Mr. RANKIN. In other words, all pub¬
lic bodies, whether owned by the Fed¬
eral Government, cooperative power as¬
sociations, or municipally owned systems
are to be able to purchase this power at
such a rate as will amortize only that
part of the development charged to
pov/er. That is correct, is it not?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is true
with respect to all projects constructed
by the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. RANKIN. In other words we do
not propose to unload onto the power
consumers the costs of flood control, nav¬
igation, and reclamation?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Not at all. I
may say further in answer to the gen¬
tleman’s question, there is preference to
the public bodies and cooperatives in this
bill and in this agreement, just as there
is In the existing law passed by this body
on the disposal of power at Bonneville.
Mr. RANKIN. And by the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I cannot say
about the Tennessee Valley Authority be¬
cause this bill has no control over dis¬
posal of power by the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand, but I was
coauthor with Senator Norris of the bill
creating the Tennessee Valley Author¬
ity, and that was the understanding we
had, even before the bill was ever intro¬
duced.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am afraid, if
this bill covered all projects including the
Tennessee Valley Authority, that the
gentleman would have objected; so we
have confined it to the projects con¬
structed by the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. RANKIN. This provision of the
law would not in any way interfere with
the power generated either on the Colum¬
bia River or on the Tennessee River.
I wish to congratulate the conferees,
and also the Senate, on this great step
forward in protecting the power consum¬
ers in the use of the electricity generated
at the projects provided for under this
bill.
Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield.
Mr. REED of New York. I assume that
it will expedite the survey of flood con¬
ditions on Cattaraugus Creek that are
causing so much damage to the village
of Gowanda, N. Y., and also the survey
of the Genesee River and a tributary in
V/ellsville, N. Y., and to have each of
these pi’ojects handled as they have been
by resolutions rather than in this legis¬
lation now under consideration.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; the gen¬
tleman is referring to a matter that may
be handled in one of two ways, one by
consideration in this bill to provide for
examination and survey, or by a resolu¬
tion of the Flood Control Committee for
review; and the quickest way to handle
it in his case was by resolution, and the
resolutions were adopted, providing for
reviews of both vicinities. Upon the sub¬
mission of favorable reports, the Flood
Control Committee will give considera¬
tion to authorizing the projects in the
next authorization bill.
Mr. CARLSON of Kansas. Mr. Speak¬
er, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. CARLSON of Kansas. I call at¬
tention to amendment No. 44. The con¬
ferees rejected the Senate amendment
which had authorized the Tuttle Creek
Reservoir. I wonder if the chairman
would tell us the reason for eliminating
that amendment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. In response to
the gentleman’s question I may say that
the reasons are set forth on page 11 of
the report dealing with amendment No.
44. That project was included in the
Flood Control Act some years ago. It
protects one of the most populous and
valuable areas not only in the Missouri
Basin but in the entire cormtry. Among
other municipalities that are protected
are those of Kansas City, Mo., and Kan¬
sas City, Kans. The committee felt that
inasmuch as this project had been care¬
fully considered by Congress that it
would be unwise utterly to ignore the
recommendation of the Chief Engineer,
because the amounts authorized for ex¬
penditure for local protective works
would be futile without adequate provi¬
sion to supplement those works by reser¬
voirs above and I would say to the gen¬
tleman that the Chief of Engineers, as
stated in this report, is now making an
investigation of possible alternate proj¬
ects under authority previously given to
trim. If the Chief of Engineers finds he
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 9417
can construct other projects that will
give the same relief he will so report;
and our thought is that every possible
consideration has been and will be ac¬
corded to "-hose who oppose the project.
It often happens that projects are op¬
posed by those w'hose lands are taken
and whose property is taken by the Gov¬
ernment — fully compensated in this case
as in others. In my judgment that is as
far as the committee was warranted in
going.
Mr. CARLSON of Kansas. I may say
the conferees gave this consideration. I
want to mention, however, that in view
of the fact that it is going to receive
further study by the engineers, I sin¬
cerely hope they will go into the fact
that the construction of this large reser¬
voir would inundate seven towns and
eliminate a large area of valuable real
property. With the chairman’s as¬
surance that this is going to be done I
am not going to insist that it go back to
confcrGHcc
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I may say that
I am in entire sympathy with the gentle¬
man. We have been told the exact num¬
ber of citizens who would be affected and
the villages that would be inundated, and
we gave full consideration to thesj facts;
but when all has been said and done we
must either follow or not follow — after
consideration if a project is to be adopt¬
ed — the agencies of the Government
making the investigation. V/e felt, as
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Carl¬
son] has suggested, we should provide
for a restudy, that is now being made,
and the committee will be glad to give
it consideration as soon as it is reported.
Mr. CARLSON of Kansas. Mr. Speak¬
er, I ask unanimous consent to extend
at this point in the Record the prelimi¬
nary survey of the Big Blue River,
Kans., submitted by the Chief of En¬
gineers on March 4, 1938.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.
(The matter referred to follows:)
War Department,
Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Washington, March 4, 1938.
Subject: Preliminary examination of Big
Blue River, Kans., with a view to the con-
tdol of floods.
To: The Secretary of War.
1. I submit for transmission to Congress
my report with accompanying papers on pre¬
liminary examination of Big Blue River, an
affluent of the Kansas River, and its tribu¬
taries, with a view to the control of their
floods, authorized by an act of Conijress ap¬
proved June 4, 1936, and by the Flood Con¬
trol Act approved June 22, 1936.
2. The Big Blue River rises in southeastern
Nebraska, flows generally southeast 283.3
miles into Kansas, and Joins the Kansas River
at Manhattan 142.5 miles above its mouth.
It drains an area of 9,600 square miles of
gently rolling uplands devoted primarily to
agriculture. The basin has a population of
about 230,000 and is adequately served by
railroads and highways.
3. No damaging floods of major importance
have occurred on the Big Blue River in the
period of record, but studies Indicate that
floods substantially greater than any recorded
are a distinct probability. Flood flov/s from
the Big Blue River are also a factor in Kan¬
sas RiVer floods. Some 60,000 acres in the
Big Blue Basin are subject to flooding end
of the 36 towns located within the flood plain
proper, 6 have experienced extensive flooding
in the past. Flood damages are estimated
to average $97,000 annually. No protection
works of importance have been undertaken
in the basin. Local interests desire construc¬
tion of a series of reservoirs for the purpose
of controlling floods within the basin and cn
the Kansas River, but no indication has been
given of willingness to provide funds for
lands and damages incident to such works.
4. The district engineer reports that levees
for the protection of municipalities are not
Justified and channel rectification as a means
for reducing flood heights would be ineffec¬
tive. The plan found most suitable for con¬
trolling floods on the Big Blue River provides
for the construction of four reservoirs con¬
trolling 40 percent of the drainage area.
While this plan would prevent about 60 per¬
cent of the flood losses in the basin and would
be of value in reducing floods on the Kansas
River, the cost of the project would greatly
exceed the flood losses that would be pre¬
vented thereby. It is found Impracticable to
combine power development with flood-con¬
trol reservoirs for the purpose of reducing the
over-all costs of the project. • The district en¬
gineer concludes that there is not sufficient
Justification for the control of floods on the
Big Blue River and its tributaries, and recom¬
mends that no survey be made. The division
engineer concurs.
5. The reports have been referred, as re¬
quired by law, to the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited
to its report herewith concurring in the views
of the district and division engineers, and re¬
porting that control of floods of the Big Blue
River is impracticable,' and that a survey is
not warranted.
6. After due consideration of these reports
I concur in the views of the Board. While
there is a distinct possibility of floods much
greater than any of past record occurring on
the Big Blue River and its tributaries, flood
losses that may be expected under existing
conditions of development in the basin do not
warrant the high cost of a reservoir system
necessary for the control of floods. Levees for
the protection of municipalities ,also would
cost considerably more than is Justified by the
damages that would be prevented thereby.
Available data permit a full understanding-
of the flood situation, and additional studies
are not required. I therefore report that con¬
trol of floods of the Big Blue River and its
tributaries in Nebraska and Kansas is im¬
practicable, and that a survey is not war¬
ranted.
J. L. Schley,
Major General, Chief of Engineers.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield.
Mr. CURTIS. It should be said, in
reference to the Blue River system, that
not only has the committee authorized
an additional storage proposition in con¬
nection with Tuttle Creek but that
proposition is already under way and the
engineers are on the work in the river
basin now.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I want
to call the gentleman’s attention on
page 4G to a number of projects for
which surveys are to be made after the
war with particular reference to possible
flood-control improvement, and I thank
the gentleman and his committee for
including the Susquehanna River in
the vicinity of Endicott, Johnson City,
and Vestal.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I may say to
the gentleman that the construction of
works will occur during the post-war
period but that examinations and sur¬
veys are now being made and there will
not be any delay until the post-war pe¬
riod so far as these' examinations and
survey reports are concerned.
Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I am
safe in assuming, however, if a favor¬
able survey is mads of these sections,
there will be improvement after the war?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. They will be
considered by the Committee on Flood
Control. I emphasize that funds are now
available for preliminary examination
and surveys previously authorized, as
well as now authorized in this bill.
Mr. O’CONNOR. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Montana.
Mr. O’CONNOR. As a member of the
distingiushed gentleman’s committee I
heard all of the testimony with reference
to the Army engineers and the Bureau
of Reclamation with reference to the
Missouri River Basin, and I take it that
amendment No. 18, which appears in
the amended bill, is what is known as
the O’Mahoney amendment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I so stated.
Mr. O’CONNOR. I want to see if the
chairman agrees with me on this: My
recollection of the testimony is that
there was very little variance between
the contentions of the Army engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation on
the proposition incorporated in the
O’Mahoney am.endment?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentleman
Is correct. There was ■ substantially no
difference on the engineering works pro¬
posed. The only difference was a ques¬
tion of who was going to construct them.
Mr. O’CONNOR. Is it not true it was
largely a newspaper fight over practically
nc contention between these depart¬
ments?
Mr. WHI'TTINGTON. I may say to
the gentleman that the newspapers, ac¬
cording to the information I have, did
not neglect their opportunity.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Will the gentle¬
man yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Am I right in my
assumption th'at the entire Ouachita
River watershed project is retained, in¬
cluding cost of acquisition of the land?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is as passed
by the House.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. I want to thank
the chairman on behalf of the Oklahoma
delegation for that, and I wish to thank
him individually for retaining in the bill
the amendments which I submitted and
which the gentleman presented during
debate on this matter.
Mr. CASE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE. I wish to congratulate the
gentleman and the members of his com¬
mittee on the monumental work they
have achieved by their year-long labors
in hearings and conferences necessary to
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
8418
bring about agreement on the many mat¬
ters in this bill, and particularly those
involved in the Missouri River program.
This will bring into the national picture
for the first time a flood-control and
river-use project in the great north cen¬
tral part of the country. It will in¬
augurate a new era in the life of the
largest river basin of the Nation. Now,
then, I would like to ask the gentleman
one question. My understanding of
amendment No. 9 relating to power is
that it centralizes the disposition of
power generated in the dams in the Sec¬
retary of the Interior?
Mr. V/HITTINGTON. That is right.
Mr. CASE. And limits him in the con¬
struction or acquisition of lines to such
lines as are necessary for distribution on
a v/holesale basis?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Exactly so. I
am glad that the gentleman brings this
matter to my attention. I should have
pointed out that therein is the difference
between the sale of power generated at
some of the other dams. This disposal
is limited to wholesale. I may say that in
my judgment the provision is entirely
proper.
The House will recall that the Senate
spent much time in considering the so-
called Bailey amendment which would
have restricted the disposal of the power
to the dam site which I think would have
been unsound.
Mr. CASE. The limitation to whole¬
sale distribution seems to me to be an
appropriate compromise. The Secretary
of the Interior, thereby, will not be urged
or tempted to go into competition with
the R. E. A. or any other distributing
agency, private or public, yet should be
in a position to extend the use of the
power to the maximum public benefit
through whatever distributor is inter¬
ested and available.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Will the gentle¬
man yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. CHENOWETH. I call the atten¬
tion of the distinguished chairman to
amendment No. 36 relating to a pro¬
ject at Trinidad, Colo., wherein the con¬
ferees eliminated an amendment adopted
by the Senate which provided for the
Army engineers to make a further study
of this project and to recommend a
reservoir up the river if found feasible.
Will the gentleman explain why this
amendment was stricken.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The amend¬
ment proposed by the Senate was elimi¬
nated among other reasons because there
is no limit as to the cost of the ghbstitute.
It would be possible for almost every
project to have a substitute unless there
was the further stipulation that the cost
of the substitute did not substantially
exceed the cost of the original project.
We were advised by the Chief of Engi¬
neers that if that proviso had been in¬
cluded as a part of the conference agree¬
ment it would mean that there would be
no construction of the substitute project
until he, the Chief of Engineers, came
back to Congress and obtained further
authority. In view of the fact that the
House provision had been most liberal
and had followed the idea of the Chief
of Engineers v/ho recommended the
elimination of $60,000 of the local con¬
tribution recommended by the district
engineer for flood control, the conferees
felt the interest of Trinidad would be
better served by retaining the House
provision, knowing that at present, un¬
der an existing authorization, there is a
review being made, and if that on re¬
examination a substitute could be
recommended in accordance with the
desires manifested in the Senate amend¬
ment, it could be considered by the two
committees of the House and Senate for
subsequent authorization.
Mr. CHENOWETH. Do I understand
the conferees to be in accord with the
provision that there shall be a review
of this project by the Army engineers
and a report made of their findings at a
d3-t/0^
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; the Chief
of Engineers so advised us.
Mr. CHENOWETH. And if the engi¬
neers do not now have that authority, it
will be provided. I might state the dis¬
trict engineer at Albuquei lue has al¬
ready attended several conferences in
Trinidad relative to including a reservoir
in this project, and I understand the
Army engineers are favorable to a
review.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The gentleman
may get that authority by request for a
proper resolution from the Committee
on Flood Control.
Mr. NORRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. NORRELL. If the gentleman will
turn to amendment 33 on page 21, as I
understand the Arkansas River is con¬
sidered a part of the main channel of the
Mississippi River up to the vicinity of
Pine Bluff. I am wondering if that lan¬
guage is sufficiently broad to give the
Army engineers the newer to reimburse
for set-back levies on the north as well
as on the south bank of the Arkansas
River?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; that was
never contemplated, and the original act
of August 18, 1941, does not make any
such provision.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi has again ex¬
pired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 3 additional minutes.
The amendment to which the gentle¬
man refers is limited entirely as hereto¬
fore to the main line Mississippi River
levees. It does not have application to
any other river.
Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. ANGELL. Am I correct in under¬
standing that under the provisions as
agreed upon by the conferees, the Secre¬
tary of the Interior has the power either
to buy transmission facilities or construct
them and to dispose of power at whole¬
sale?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; he has the
power to construct or acquire by pur¬
chase or other agreement, but the funds
have to be provided by the Congress of
December 12
the United States, and the Congress thus
retains the purse strings of the Treas-
urj' -
Mr. ANGELL. It does not affect any
project on the Columbia River?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; it does not.
Mr. BENNETT of Missouri. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BENNETT of Missouri. Is it true
that this report nowhere changes the
status of the so-called Osceola Reservoir
on the Osage River in Missouri?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It does not, be¬
cause that project was not at issue in the
conference.
Mr. RANKIN. ’ Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. RANKIN. In response to a state¬
ment made a moment ago may I say
that neither the Tennessee Valley
Authority, nor the Bonneville Adminis¬
tration, nor the Authorities in charge of
Boulder Dam are engaged in the retail
distribution of power. That power Is
sold wholesale. The power generated by
the Tennessee Valley Authority is de¬
livered wholesale to municipalities or co¬
operative power associations, and they
distribute it. The same thing is true at
Bonneville and Grand. Coulee on the
Columbia River and at Boulder Dam on
Colorado River. I did not want the im¬
pression left here that these Authori¬
ties were engaged in the retail distribu¬
tion of electricity.
Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JENKINS. I think amendment
numbered 9 is very significant. Would
it be safe for me to assume from this
language that this bill pronounces the
power policy of the Nation? Heretofore,
as I understand it, we have never had
any pronouncement of our national
power policy. But by this language you
practically announce a power policy for
the Nation. I think I can see in the lan¬
guage an effort to be cautious and care¬
ful. I think you should have been even
more careful, for heretofore I think those
responsible authorities in the Govern¬
ment have been very careful not to com¬
mit the Government to any definite
policy.
May I ask the gentleman this ques¬
tion? Suppose there is a project now
that is being built and it can be built
without equipment to manufacture
power. Does the gentleman mean that
the Secretary of the Interior would have
sufficient authority under this bill to
compel the building of that project so
that he would have pewer-generating
facilities?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. He has no au¬
thority whatsoever with respect to the
construction. The necessity for this
language is this: In some of these reser¬
voirs that are authorized to be con¬
structed there is a generation of power.
The concrete proposition that confronted
our committee was this : Shall we author¬
ize these projects where power is inci¬
dental and make no provision for the
1944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 9449
disposal of it, or shall we leave it to the
President of the United States to set up
an executive authority as he has done
in Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma?
Mr. JENKINS. The gentleman has
outlined a case I have in mind exactly.
Suppose the Secretary of War says, “I
do not think this project should be
equipped with power facilities,” and the
Chief of the Army Engineers says, “I do
not think it should be done,” but the
Secretary of the Interior comes along
and says, ‘T know it has great possi¬
bilities of power, and I think it should
be done,” and he seeks the aid of the
President and the President encourages
it until it is done. Does not that settle
the matter so that one could reasonably
conclude that this bill does fix and an¬
nounce a policy that the Secretary of the
Interior and the President can control
the power policy of the Nation?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. We have set¬
tled that. We have said that the matter
of power is to be passed on by the Chief
of Engineers and by the Federal Power
Commission. We have provided that
there shall be a transmittal of projects
hereafter so that each can get the benefit
of the other’s views. I may say in reply
tc the gentleman’s question that the
Secretary of the Interior has no control
whatever over the construction of any
dam under the control of the War De¬
partment.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen¬
tleman from Mississippi has again ex¬
pired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 2 additional minutes.
Mr. JENKTNS. Can the Secretary of
the Interior under the language and au¬
thority of this law build a foundation
upon which he and the President can
scatter some more T. V. A.’s all over the
nation? I should hope it does not.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; he has no
power whatever with respect to building
and construction, and his power is limit¬
ed only to the sale and transmission of
the excess power generated at dams au¬
thorized and constructed by the War De¬
partment.
Mr. MAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gen¬
tleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MAY. I was about to inquire
along the line of the question of the gen¬
tleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins],
whether or not this bill established the
Federal policy of this Government with
respect to the manufacture, sale, and dis¬
tribution of power.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would say it
is confined only to the projects where
power is to be generated, at reservoir
projects under the control of the War De¬
partment not required for the operation
of the projects.
Ml'. MAY. In each instance each pro j -
ect is controlled by the provisions of the
bill?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is correct.
It might be changed hereafter by Con¬
gress.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. I direct
attention to amendment 26, the Connect¬
icut River project. In reading the Sen¬
ate debate, I noticed that Members of the
other body paid a very well-deserved
tribute to the efforts of the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Clason] . I un¬
derstand that on their invitation the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Clason] joined in the conferences over
there and worked out this compromise,
which I understand is not only satisfac¬
tory to Vermont but perfectly satisfac¬
tory to Connecticut.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to insert as part of my remarks at this
point the observations of the two Mem¬
bers of the Senate commending the ef¬
forts of the gentleman from Massachu¬
setts [Mr. Clason].
The SPEAICER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Con¬
necticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. COCHRAN. On the White River
project $45,000,000 additional is author¬
ized. Does that include the construc¬
tion of two additional dams in connec¬
tion with the Norfolk Dam?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That includes
the $45,000,000 that may be used on the
two additional dams to be selected by
the Chief of Engineers. There was noth¬
ing in dispute as to this item in con¬
ference. The authorization is just as
it passed the House.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. If the
gentleman will yield further, in line 6
on page 16 appear the words “other than
a flood-control type dam.” Does that
mean that that particular reservoir can
be used for nothing but flood control?
M. WHITTINGTON. It means just
what it says. That is a flood-control
dam.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. They
cannot generate power there?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; you cannot
generate power because it is for flood
control and not for power. It is not a
multiple-purpose project.
Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. There
will be no units built into the dam?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I do not know
what will happen hereafter, but under
this bill there cannot be so built.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques¬
tion on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The confei'ence report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
EXTENSION OP REMARKS
Mr. WHITTINGTON, Mr. JENKINS,
Mr. CASE, and Mr. REED of New York
asked and were given permission to re¬
vise and extend their remarks.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks and include certain excerpts.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ne¬
braska?
There was no objection.
(Mr. GAMBLE, Mr. MILLER of Con¬
necticut, and Mr. CHENOWETH asked
and were granted permission to revise
and extend their remarks.)
Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the remarks I
have just made appear after the re¬
marks of my colleague the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Reed].
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
ESTABLISHING DENTAL CORPS OP THE
NAVY
Mr. VINSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker,
I move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for the considera¬
tion of the bill (H. R. 4216) to provide
more efficient dental care for the per¬
sonnel of the United States Navy, a rule
having been previously granted.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consid¬
eration of the bill (H. R. 4216) to provide
more efficient dental care for the person¬
nel of the United States Navy, with Mr.
Harris in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. VINSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair¬
man, I ask unanimous consent to dis¬
pense with the first reading of the bill
and that the bill and committee amend¬
ment be printed in the Record at this
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
The bill is as follows:
Be it enacted, etc.. That (1) the Secretary
of the Navy be authorized and directed, no
later than 60 days after this act becomes law,
to establish a Dental Department in the Navy,
which shall function under the Surgeon Gen¬
eral as is now provided in the case of the
Medical Department.
(2) To provide tbfet the functions of the
Dental Department' shall toe of such profes¬
sional, technical, and administrative nature
as pertain to the conduct of the naval dental
service, including cooperation with the Medi¬
cal Department in all matters of mutual in¬
terest and cognizance.
(3) To provide that personnel of the Den¬
tal Department shall consist of (a) officers
of the Dental -Corps, one of whom shall serve
as Director of Dentistry and be directly re¬
sponsible to the Surgeon General for the ad-
ntinistration of dental affairs within the Bu¬
reau of Medicine and Surgery; (b) chief war¬
rant and 'warrant officers in numbers not
exceeding 5 percent of the total number of
officers of the Dental Corps; (c) enlisted per¬
sonnel in such ratings and distribution by
pay grades within the ratings and in such
numbers not to exceed 166 percent of the
total number of dental officers, as may be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy : Pro~
videc^ further, That nothing stated herein
shall act to reduce the grade or rank of any
person.
(4) To provide that the Director of Den-
tlsjiy shall be appointed by the President
fr<nn dental officers on active duty and that
tHe Director of Dentistry shall, while so serv¬
ing, have the rank of rear admiral.
(6) This act to take effect immediately
^ upon its approval by the President.
9420
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE
December 12
With the following committee amend¬
ment:
strike out all after the enacting clause and
Insert:
"That the Secretary of the Navy shall within
6 months after the date of enactment of
this act reorganize the Bureau of Medicine
and Surgery in accordance with the provi¬
sions hereof.
“Sec. 2. The functions of the Medical Corps
and those of the Dental Corps shall each be
defined and prescribed by regulations of the
Secretary of the Navy, and each such corps
shall have a director, who shall be responsible
to the Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery.
“Sec. 3. An officer of the Medical Corps of
the Navy shall be detailed as the Director of
the Medical Corps, and an officer of the Den¬
tal Corps of the Navy shall be detailed as
the Director of the Dental Corps. Such offi¬
cers, while so serving, shall have the rank,
pay, and allowances of a rear admiral. No
provisions of this act shall be construed to
reduce the rank or pay of any person.
“Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Navy shall
provide by regulations for establishing on
ships and on shore stations dental services
to be administered under the senior dental
officer who shall be responsible directly to
the commanding officer of such ship or shore
station for all professional, technical, and
administrative matters in connection there¬
with.
“Sec. 5. The Secretary of the Navy shall
provide by regulations for a suitable number
of dental technicians of appropriate ratings
and ranks, and for their training, detail, re¬
tention, supervision, and direction by appro¬
priate dental officers in carrying out the pro¬
visions of this act.
“Sec. 6. In carrying out the provisions
hereof, the Secretary of the Navy shall con¬
sult with the Chief of Naval Operations and
shall not impose any administrative require¬
ments hereunder on combatant ships or in
combatant areas ashore which would inter¬
fere with the proper functioning of battle
organizations. ,
“Sec. 7. All laws and parts of laws in con¬
flict herewith are hereby repealed.’’
Mr. VINSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair¬
man, in view of the fact that this bill
was reported to the House by the dis¬
tinguished member of the Committee on
Naval Affairs the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Rivers] I now yield 15
minutes to him.
[Mr. RIVERS addressed the Commit¬
tee. His remarks appear in the Appen¬
dix of today’s Record.]
Mr. VINSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair¬
man, I yield myself 15 minutes and I ask
unanimous consent to speak out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Vinson]? •
There was no objection.
Mr. VINSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair¬
man, the compensation of Senators,
Representatives, the Vice President,
Speaker, and members of the President’s
Cabinet have not been increased for 20
years. The last increase occurred in
1925, when the salaries of Senators and
Members were raised from $7,500 to
$10,000 — an increase of one-third. The
last increase previous to that occurred in
1907 — 13 years earlier — when such sal¬
aries were raised from $5,000 to $7,500 —
an increase of 50 percent.
The salaries of the Vice President,
Speaker, and members of the Cabinet
were increased from $12,000 to $15,000 in
1925 — an increase of 25 percent — but
have not been Increased since.
The salary of the President of the
United States was fixed at $75,000 a year
in 1909, having been raised from
$50,000 — an increase of 50 percent.
When the salary of the President was
fixed at $75,000 a year in 1909, it was
not subject to tax either under Federal
or State law. Under the Revenue Act
of 1932, it was provided that the salary
of Presidents taking ofBce after June 6,
1932, should be subject to Federal in¬
come tax, and I quote from that act:
All acts fixing the compensation of such
Presidents • » • are hereby amended
accordingly.
Thus in 1932 the salary of the Presi¬
dent was actually reduced, and has been
further reduced every time the income
tax rates have been increased. At the
present time the Federal tax on the
President’s salary is approximately $48,-
000. When the Public Salary Tax Act
of 1939 was enacted, the salary of the
President was also made subject to State
income tax. Thus the real salary for
this great office of President of the
United States has been actually reduced
from $75,000 in 1932, to less than $27,000
at the present time.
I have today introduced a bill pro¬
viding for a salary of $100,000 a year for
the President, $20,000 a year for the Vice
President, Speaker, and members of the
President’s Cabinet, and $15,000 a year
for Members of the Congress.
The salaries of Members of Congress
have, of course, been subject to Federal
income tax ever since the income tax
has been in effect. But the effect of an
increasing tax rate on a person whose
salary is fixed by law is too often not
fully appreciated. When the salary of
Members was increased to $10,000 in 1925,
the tax which the Member had to pay
on that $10,000, if he was married with
no dependents, was approximately $220.
At the present time the salary is still
$10,000, but the Federal tax on that same
Member is approximately $2,500. In ad¬
dition the Member is subject to State
income taxes by reason of the Public
Salary Tax Act of 1939.
The case for a consideration of the
adequacy of the compensation of the of¬
ficials specified proceeds from several
standpoints. First and foremost. What
is the job worth, considering its duties
and responsibilities? Second, if the job
is worth more than the salary presently
attached to it, should the fact that the
country is at war act as a bar to paying
what it Is worth?
Taking up the various officers men¬
tioned, one by one, the office of President
of the United States is now the most
powerful and most responsible office in
the entire world. And yet the salary at¬
tached to that office is less than that re¬
ceived by many vice presidents and as¬
sistant vice presidents of private banks
and industrial concerns. It is much less
than the yearly earnings of Frank Sina¬
tra. Many lawyers, doctors, and other
professional people, whose names I dare¬
say would not be recognized by a single
Member of this House, unless it be the
Member from the same district, receive
more than $75,000 a year. Read the
names and salaries released from time
to time by the Treasury Department of
those who reported salaries in excess of
$75,000. I do not wish to criticize any
of those salaries, although some of us
here may believe them to be too high and
so state at the proper time. I mention
them merely to indicate that in com¬
parison with policymaking positions out¬
side of the Government, the present sal¬
ary attached to the great office of Presi¬
dent of the United States is meager.
The two next highest offices in the
United States are those of Vice President
and Speaker of the House of Representa¬
tives, and what is their salary? Fifteen
thousand dollars a year, which is $25,000
less than that paid to the mayor of New
York City. The Cabinet members, those
whose duty it is to advise the President
on all of the matters coming within the
jurisdiction of their respective depart¬
ments, and give the best advice thereon
that it is possible to secure, likewise are
paid a mere $15,000 a year. I would
venture to say that in every town in the
United States having a population of
10,000 or so persons there are many
people whose capabilities and responsi¬
bilities command $15,000 a year.
Coming to the Congress itself, as I
previously stated, in 1909, the salary was
raised from $5,000 to $7,500 a year. It
remained at $7,500 until 1925, when it
was increased to $10,000 a year. At that
time Congress met in December, ad¬
journed usually in June, and every sec¬
ond year had the short session from De¬
cember to the succeeding March, and
then adjourned until the following De¬
cember. Since that time not only has
the “lame duck” amendment become
part of the Constitution, doing away
with the short session, but the duties
and responsibilities of the Congress have
immeasurably increased. In recent
years the Federal Government, both leg¬
islatively and administratively, has
greatly increased the scope of its activ¬
ities. New economic and social prob¬
lems, having vast implications and far-
reaching consequences, have demanded
solution by the Federal Government. At
this very moment the role of leadership
in world affairs v.'hich the United States
is destined to assume at the conclusion
of the present war will call for the solu¬
tion, both by the Congress and the Ex¬
ecutive, of tremendous new problems.
Thus we come to the main question:
In view of these tremendous new re¬
sponsibilities and duties and the neces¬
sity of securing the best brains that can
be found to undertake them, what are
these officers worth?
What kind of a Congress do you want?
What kind of a Congress do your con¬
stituents want? Do they want a Con¬
gress whose ability and dignity is equal
to that of the other two branches of the
Federal Government — a Congress which
commands the respect not only of our
own people but that of people all over
the world? In my opinion, the kind of
Congress which our people are entitled
to have is a Congress composed of men
who are willing to come here at some per¬
sonal sacrifice in order to render public
service, and we should fix the salary at a
!
)
[Public Law 534 — 78th Congress]
[Chapter 665 — 2d Session]
[H. R. 4485]
AN ACT
Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for
flood control, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Refresentatives of the
‘ United States of America in Congress assembled^ In connection with
the exercise of jurisdiction over the rivers of the Nation through the
construction of works of improvement, for navigation or flood control,
as herein authorized, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Con¬
gress to recognize the interests and rights of the States in determining
I the development of the watersheds within their borders and likewise
their interests and rights in water utilization and control, as herein
authorized to preserve and protect to the fullest possible extent estab¬
lished and potential uses, for all purposes, of the waiters of the Nation’s
rivers; to facilitate the consideration of projects on a basis of com¬
prehensive and coordinated development; and to limit the authoriza-
\ion and construction of navigation works to those in which a substan-
»|ial benefit to navigation will be realized therefrom and which can be
«)perated consistently with appropriate and economic use of the waters
fof such rivers by other users.
1 In conformity with this policy :
)' (a) Plans, proposals, or reports of the Chief of Engineers, War
Department, for any works of improvement for navigation or flood
icontrol not heretofore or herein authorized, shall be submitted to the
Congress only upon compliance with the provisions of this para¬
graph (a) . Investigations which form the basis of any such plans, pro¬
posals, or reports shall be conducted in such a manner as to give to
the affected State or States, during the course of the investigations,
information developed by the investigations and also opportunity for
consultation regarding jilans and proposals, and, to the extent deemed
practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in
the investigations. If such investigations in whole or part are con¬
cerned with the use or control of waters arising west of the ninety-
seventh meridian, the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Secretary
of the Interior, during the course of the investigations, information
developed by the investigations and also opportunity for consultation
regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent deemed practicable
by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the investi¬
gations. The relations of the Chief of Engineers with any State
under this paragraph (a) shall be with the Governor of the State
or such official or agency of the State as the Governor may designate.
The term “affected State or States” slnvH include those in which the
works or any part thereof are proposed to be located ; those which in
whole or part are both within the drainage basin involved and situ¬
ated in a State lying wholly or in part west of the ninety-eighth
meridian; and such of those which are east of the ninety-eighth
[Pub. Law 634.]
2
meridian as, in the judgment of tlie Chief of Engineers, will be sub¬
stantially affected. Such plans, proposals, or reports and related'
investigations shall be made to the end, among other things, of facili-
^ coordination of plans for the construction and operation
ot the proposed works with other plans involving the waters Avhich
would be used or controlled by such proposed works. Each report
submitting any such plans or proposals to the Congress shall set out
therein, among other things, the relationship between the plans for
construction and operation of the proposed Avorks and the plans
if any, submitted by the affected States and by the Secretary of the ,
Interior. The Chief of Engineers shall transmit a copy of his pro-M
posed report to each affected State, and, in case the plans or proposals
. covered by the report are concerned Avith the use or control of
waters which rise in Avhole or in part west of the ninety-seventh
meridian, to the Secretary of the Interior. Within ninety days from
the date of receipt of said proposed report, the Avritten vieAvs and
recommendations of each affected State and of the Secretary of the
Interior may be submitted to the Chief of Engineers. The Secretary '
of War shall transmit to the Congress, Avith such comments and rec¬
ommendations as he deems appropriate, the proposed report together
with the submitted views and recommendations of affected States and
of the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of War may prepare
and make said transmittal any time folloAving said ninety-day period.
The letter of transmittal and its attachments shall be "printed as a
House or Senate document. 1
(b) The use for navigation, in connection with the operation aild
maintenance of such Avorks herein authorized for construction if
AA;aters arising in States lying Avholly or partly Avest of the ninky-
eighth meridian shall be only such use as does not conflict with any
beneficial consumptive use, present or future, in States lyino- wholly i
or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters fir*
domestic, municipal, stock Avater, irrigation, mining, or industrial
purposes.
(c) The Secretary of the Interior, in making investigations of and
reports on works for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto shall,
ill 1 elation to an affected State or States (as defined in iiaragraph
(a) of this section), and to the Secretary of War, be subject to the
same provisions regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and
reports as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section for the Chief
of Engineers and the Secretary of War. In the event a submission
of vieAvs and recommendations, made by an affected State or by the
Secretary of War pursuant to said provisions, sets forth objections
to the plans or proposals covered by the report of the Secretary of
the Interior, the proposed works shall not be deemed authorized
except upon approval by an Act of Congress; and subsection 9 (a)
of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187) and subsection
o (a) ot the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418), as amended, are
hereby amended accordingly.
Sec. 2. That the words “flood control” as used in section 1 of the
Act of June 22, 1936, shall be construed to include channel and major
diainage inipiov^ements, and that hereafter Federal investigations and
improvements of rivers and other AvaterAvays for flood control and
allied purposes shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prose¬
cuted by the War Department under the direction of the Secretary
3
|Pun. Law 534.]
of War and snpei’vision of (lie Chief of Engineers, and Federal inves-
tigalions of watersheds and measures for run -off and water-flow
retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds shall be under
tlie jurisdiction of and sliall be prosecuted by the Department of
Agriculture under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture,
except as otherwise ]')rovided by Act of Congress.
Sec. 3. That section 3 of the Act approved June 22, 193G (Public,
Numbered 738, Seventy-fourth Congress), as amended by section 2
of the Act approved June 28, 1938 (Public, Numbered 701, Seventy-
fifth Congress), shall apply to all works authorized in this Act,
except that for any channel improvement or channel rectification
])roject provisions (a), (b), and (c) of section 3 of said Act of June
22, 1930, shall apply thereto, and except as othervrise provided by
law : Provided^ That the authorization for any flood-control project
herein adopted requiring local coo]ieration shall expire five j^ears
from the date on which local interests are notified in writing by the
War Department of the requirements of local cooperation, unless
said interests shall within said time furnish assurances satisfactory
to the Secretary of War that the required cooperation will be
furnished.
Sec. 4. The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the Sec¬
retary of War, is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate
public park and recreational facilities in reservoir areas under the
conti'ol of the War Department, and to permit (he construction,
maintenance, and operation of such facilities. The Secretary of War
is authorized to grant leases of lands, including structure or facilities
thereon, in reservoir areas for such periods and upon such terms as
he may deem reasonable : Provided^ That preference shall be given to
Federal, State, or local governmental agencies, and licenses may be
granted Avithout monetary consideration, to such agencies for the use
of areas suitable for public ])ark and recreational purposes, Avhen the
Secretary of AVar determines such action to be in the public interest.
The Avater areas of all such reserAmirs shall be open to public use
generally, Avithout charge, for boating, sAvimming, bathing, fishing,
and other recreational purposes, and ready access to and exit from
such water areas along the shores of such reseiwoirs shall be main¬
tained for general public use, Avhen such use is determined by the
Secretary of AVar not to be contrary to the public interest, all under
such rules and regulations as the Secretary of AA^ar may deem neces¬
sary. No use of any area to Avhich this section applies shall be per¬
mitted which is inconsistent Avith the laAvs for the protection of fish
and game of the State in Avhich such area is situated. All moneys
received for leases or jDriAuleges shall be deposited in the Treasury
of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 5. Electric poAver and enei-gy generated at reseiwoir projects
under the control of the AVar Department and in the opinion of the
Secretary of AA^ar not requii-ed in -the operation of such projects shall
be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior, Avho shall transmit and
dispose of such i)OAver and energy in such manner as to encourage the
most widespread use thereof at the loAvest possible rates to consumers
consistent Avith sound business principles, the rate schedules to become
effective upon confirmation and approAuil by the Federal PoAver Com¬
mission. Rate schedules .shall be draAvn having regard to the recoA-ery
(upon the basis of the application of such rate schedules to the capacity
[PCB. Law 534.]
4
of the electric facilities of the projects) of the cost of producing and
transmitting such electric energy, including the amortization of the
capital investment allocated to power over a reasonable period of years.
Preference in the sale of such power and energy shall be given to public
bodies and cooperatives. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized,
from funds to be appropriated by the Congress, to construct or acquire,
by purchase or other agreement, only such transmission lines and
related facilities as may be necessary in order to make the power
and energy generated at said projects available in wholesale quantities
for sale on fair and reasonable terms and conditions to facilities
owned by the Federal Government, public bodies, cooperatives, and
privately owned companies. All moneys received from such sales
shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts.
Sec. 6. That the Secretary of War is authorized to make contracts
with States, municipalities, private concerns, or individuals, at such
prices and on such terms as he may deem reasonable, for domestic
and industrial uses for suiq)lus water that may be available at any reser¬
voir under the control of the War Department : Provided^ That no
contracts for such water shall adversely affect then existing lawful
uses of such water. All moneys received from such contracts shall be
deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts.
Sec. 7. Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to
prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood control
or navigation at all reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with
Federal funds provided on the basis of such purposes, and the oper¬
ation of any such project shall be in accordance with such regulations :
Provided^ That this section shall not apply to the Tennessee Valley
Authority, except that in case of danger from Hoods on the Lower
Ohio and Mississippi Rivers the Tennessee Valley Authority is
directed to regulate the release of water from the Tennessee River into
the Ohio River in accordance with such instructions as may be issued
by the War Department.
Sec. 8. Hereafter, whenever the Secretary of War determines,
upon recommendation by the Secretary of the Interior that any
dam and reservoir project operated under the direction of the Sec¬
retary of War may he utilized for irrigation purposes, the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain,
under the provisions of the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June
17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or sui^plementary
thereto), such additional works in connection therewith as he may
deem necessary for irrigation purposes. Such irrigation works may
be undertaken only after a report and findings thereon have been
made by the Secretary of the Interior as provided in said Federal
reclamation laws and after subsequent specific authorization of the
Congress by an authorization Act; and, within the limits of the
water users’ repayment ability such report may be predicated v?n the
allocation to irrigation of ah appropriate portion of the cost of
structures and facilities used for irrigation and other purposes.
Dams and reservoirs operated under the direction of the Secretary
of War may be utilized hereafter for ii’rigation jDurposes only in
conformity with the provisions of this section, but the foregoing
requirement shall not prejudice lawful uses now exisiting; Provided,
5
[Pub. Law 534.]
That this section shall not apply to any dam or reservoir heretofore
constructed in whole or in part by the Army engineers, which pro¬
vides conservation storage of water for irrigation purposes.
Skc. 9. (a) The general comprehensive plans set forth in- House
Document 475 and Senate Document 191, Seventy-eighth Congress,
secoml .session, as revised and coordinated by Senate Document 247,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, are hereby approved and the
initial stages recommended are hereby authorized and shall be prose¬
cuted by the War Department and the Department of the Interior
as speeclily as may be consistent with budgetary requirements.
(bl The general comprehensive plan for flood control and other
jnirposes in the Missouri River Basin approved by the Act of June
28, 1938, as modified by subsequent Acts, is hereby expanded to include
the works referred to in paragraph (a) to be undertaken by the War
Dejiartment ; and said expanded plan shall be prosecuted under the
direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of
Engineers.
(c) Subject to the basin-wide findings and recommendations
regarding the benefits, the allocations of costs and the repayments
by water users, made in said House and Senate documents, the recla¬
mation and ])ower developments to be undertaken by the Secretary of
the Interior under said ])lans shall be governed by the Federal Recla¬
mation Laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amend¬
atory thereof or supplementaiy thereto), except that irrigation of
Indian trust and tribal lands, and repayment therefoi’, shall be in
accordance with the laws relating to Indian lands.
(cl) In addition to previous authorizations there is hereby author¬
ized to be appropriated the sum of $200,000,000 for the partial accom¬
plishment of the works to be undertaken under said expanded plans
by the Corps of Engineers.
(e) The sum of $200,000,000 is hereby authorized to be appropri¬
ated for the partial accomplishment of the works to be undertaken
under said plans by the Secretary of the Interior.
Sec. 10. That the following works of improvement for the benefit
of navigation and the control of destructive flood waters and other
purposes are hereby adopted and authorized in the interest of the
•national security and with a view toward providing an adequate
reservoir of useful and worthy public works for the post-war con¬
struction program, to be prosecuted under the direction of the Sec¬
retary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accord¬
ance with the plans in the respective reports hereinafter designated
and subject to the conditions sot forth therein: Provided., That the
necessary plans, specifications, and preliminary work may be pro.se-
cuted on any project authorized in this Act to be constructed by the
War Department during the war, with funds from appropriations
heretofore or hereafter made for flood control, so as to be ready for
rapid inauguration of a post-war program of construction : Provided
farther., That when the existing critical situation with respect to
materials, equipment, and manpower no longer exists, and in any
event not later than immediately following the cessation of hostilities
in the present war, the projects herein shall be initiated as expeditiously
and prosecuted as vigorously as mav be consistent with budgetary
requirements : And provided, further, That penstocks and other similar
facilities adapted to possible future use in the development of hydro-
[Pub. Law 534.J
6
electric power shall be installed in any clam authorized in this Act for
construction by the War Department when approved by the Secretary
Fetal p’;™ c~To;!“'‘™
Lake Ciiampi^xin Basik
Modihcations of the existing Waterbury, Wrightsville, and East
l^ipooski Eiver Basin, Vermont, are hereby
the with the recommendations of
1-1 Vi ^ Engineers in House Document Numbered 629, Seven tv-
eiglitli Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $2,120,000.
Blackstone River Basin
.. foi' the 'W^est Hill Reservoir on the West River
Massadiusetts, for flood control and other purposes in the Black-
The pi-oject on Blackstone River for local flood protection at
Worcester, Massachusetts, is hereby authorized substantially in
^cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of. Engineers in
House Document Numbered 624, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $2,232,000.
The Pi’oject on Blackstone River for local flood protection at
aycoTd^n°nn^^’ Isl^^d, is hereby authorized substantially in
^coi dance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document_ Numbered 624, Seventy-eighth Congress second
session, at an estimated cost of $803,000 ’
PnSLlFVp'i °? '“'“I fl™'! protection at
Pav tucket, Rhode Island, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 624, Seventy-eighth Coiifrress second
session, at an estimated cost of $82,000. ^on^iess, second
Connecticut River Basin
In addition to previous autliorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $30,000,000 for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan approved in the Act of June 28, 1938, as modified
by the Act approved August 18, 1941, for the Connecticut River Basin :
Provided., Nothing in Bus Act or in any jirevious authorization shall
be construed to authorize the construction of a dam, other than a flood
control type clam, on the mam stream of the West River in the towns
state of provided
lhat the Army Engineers are authorized and directed to
of' the' flood" reservoirs in the IVest River Basin in Vermont instead
reseryom authorized by existing law, known as
the Wilharnsville Reservoir in the above mentioned toiviis, in accord-
Coiierw lion submitted by the Vermont State Water
Consei vMion Board as the same may be modified by agreement between
the said Board and the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers,
7
[Pub. Law 634.1
provided that tlie Secretary of War determines that the total costs
of the alternate plan shall not exceed the sum of $11,000,000 and
that the amount of flood control secured them at the entrance
of the Muiters of the West Iliver into the Connecticut River shall
not be less than seventy-five per centum of the flood control which
may be secured from the sinede so-called Williamsvillc Reservoir now
authorized to be constructed by the Army Engineers. Plans, pro¬
posals, or reports heretofore authorized for construction at Cambridge-
port, Ludlow, South Tunbridge, and Gaysville, in the Connecticut
River Basin, or any modification hereafter made of the comprehensive
plan for the Connecticut River Basin in Vermont under authority of
the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, or of section 3 of the
Flood Control Act approved August 18, 19-41, shall not be carried out
until after compliance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of section
1 of this Act : Promded further^ That neither this authorization nor
any previous authorization shall be construed to authorize the con¬
struction of a dam* or reservoir at the Sugar Hill site on the Ammo-
noosuc River.
Thames River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
the completion of the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
for the Thames River Basin at an estimated cost of $7,200,000.
Housatonio River Basin
The project for the Thomaston Reservoir on the Naugatuck River,
for flood control in the Housatonic River Basin, Connecticut, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 338.
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an, estimated cost of
$5,151,000.
Susquehanna River Basin
The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1930, to provide for
local protection works on the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, is hereby modified substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $2,227,000. _ • i
The project for flood protection at Tyrone, Pennsylvania, on the
Little Juniata River, Pennsylvania, is hereby authorized substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 702, Seventy-seventh Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $1,392,000.
The plan for flood control in southern New York and eastern Penn¬
sylvania authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936, as modified by the
Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby further modified to include the
South Plymouth and Genegantslet Reservoirs on tributaries of the
Chenango River substantially in accordance with the recommei^da-
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 702,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated additional
cost of $4,755,000.
IPUB. Law 634.)
8
Roanoke Riater Basin
The general plan for the comprehensive development of the Roa-|
noke River Basin for flood control and other purposes recommended
by the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 650, Sev¬
enty-eighth Congress, second session, is approved and the construc¬
tion of the Buggs Island Reservoir on the Roanoke River in Virginia
and North Carolina, and the Philpott Reservoir on the Smith River
in Virginia, are hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in that report at an
estimated cost of $36,140,000.
Edisto River Basin
The project for local flood control on Edisto River, South Carolina,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Numbered
182, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$139,000.
Savannah River Basin
The general plan for the comprehensive development of the Savan¬
nah River Basin for flood control and other pur})oses recommended
by the Chief of Engineers. in House Document Numbered 657, Sev¬
enty-eighth Congress, second session, is approved and the construction
of the Clark Hill Reservoir on the Savannah River in South Carolina
and Georgia, is hereby authorized substajitially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in that report at an
estimated cost of $35,300,000.
Mobile River Basin — Alabama-Coosa River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
the completion of the Allatoona Reservoir on the Etowah River,
Georgia, approved in the Act of August 18, 1941, at an estimated
cost of $14,400,000.
Lower Mississippi River
The project for flood control and improvement of the Lower
Mississippi River adopted by the Act of May 15, 1928, as amended
bj^ subsequent Acts of Congress, is hereby modified in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 509, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
and, as modified, is hereby adopted and there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated, in addition to the sums j)reviously authorized,
$200,000,000 for the accomplishment of the purposes set forth in
said document.
Paragraph (d) of the Lower Mississijipi River item in section 3 of
the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, is hereby construed to
authorize reimbursement for the actual inaiket value of lands, rights-
of-way, and easements, furnished subsequent to August 18, 1941, for
set-backs of main-line Mississippi River levees, regardless of State laws
limiting payments to local tax assessment valuations.
The project for flood control on the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and
Bayou Macon, Arkansas and Louisiana, is hereby authorized sub-
9
[Pub. Law 634.]
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in Senate Document Numbered 151, Seven ty-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $5,013,000.
The project for flood control on the Big Sunflower, Little Sun¬
flower, Hushpuckena, and Quiver Rivers and their tributaries, and on
Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal, Bogue Phalia, Ditchlow Bayou, Deer
Creek, and Steele Bayou, Mississippi, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 516, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $3,752,000.
The project for flood protection in the backwater area of the Yazoo
River authorized in the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, is
hereby amended to authorize the Chief of Engineers, in his discre¬
tion, to include improvements for the protection of the Satartia area
at an estimated additional cost of $1,061,000 or, in his discretion, to
include improvements for the protection of the Satartia area plus its
extension at an estimated additional cost of $1,952,000.
Red-Ouachita River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
the completion of the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941.
for the Little Missouri River in Arkansas, at an estimated cost ox
$3,800,000.^
The project on Red River in the vicinity of Shreveport, Louisiana,
for flood control and bank protection is hereby authorized, substan¬
tially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engi¬
neers in House Document Numbered 627, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost of $3,000,000, except that, in view
of the large expenditure already made by local interests, they shall
not be required to contribute to the construction cost.
The project for the Blakely Mountain Dam on the Ouachita River,
for flood control and other purposes in the Ouachita River Basin,
Arkansas, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 647, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $11,080,000.
Arkansas River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $35,000,000 for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan approved in the Act of June 28, 1938, as modified
by the Act approved August 18, 1941, for the Arkansas River Basin.
The projects for local flood protection on the Arkansas River are
hereby modified and authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 447, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
additional cost of $10,299,400.
The project on tributaries of the Fountaine Que Bouille River for
flood protection at Colorado Springs, Colorado, is hereby authorized
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document Numbered 186, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $500,000.
IPuB. Law 534.]
10
The i^roject on Purgatoire River for local flood protection at
Trinidad, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 387, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $909,000.
White River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be aiipropriated the sum of $45,000,000 for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan approved in the Act of June 28, 1938, as modified
by the Act approved August 18, 1941, for the White River Basin.
Upper Mississippi River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for the iirosecution of the
compreliensive plan approved in the Act of June 28, 1938, for the
Upper Mississippi River Basin, including the project for the Red Rock
Dam on the Des IMoines River for flood control and other purposes,
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 651, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $15,000,000.
The project authorized by the Act of June 22, 1936, for local flood
protection on the Mississippi River at the Sainte Genevieve Levee
District Numbered 1, Missouri, is hereby modified substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 727, Seventy-seventh Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $141,000.
The project on the Des Moines River for local flood protection of
Des ISIoines, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Doc¬
ument Numbered 651, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an
estimated cost of $270,000.
The project on the Mississippi River for local flood protection at
Sabula, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 328, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $25,000.
The project on the Galena River, for local flood protection at
Galena, Illinois, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 336, Seventy -seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $418,000.
The project for flood control on the Illinois River is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 692, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $111,500.
The project for flood control on Farm Creek, Illinois, is hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 802, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $3,017,900.
The project on Elk Creek and Turkey River for local flood pro¬
tection at Elkport, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in
11
[Pub. Law 634.]
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
Honse Document Numbered 700, Seventy-seventh Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $13,000.
Red River of the North Basin
The projects for flood control for Red Lake River, Minnesota,
including Clearwater River, Minnesota, are hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 345, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, first session, at an estimated cost of $902,940.
The project for the Bald Hill Reservoir on the Sheyenne River for
flood control and other purposes in the Sheyenne River Basin, North
Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
Numbered 193, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $810,000.
The projects for the construction of one reservoir on the Pembina
River and one on the Tongue River for flood control and other pur¬
poses in the Pembina River Basin, North Dakota, are hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 565, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $333,800.
The project for the construction of a reservoir on the South Branch
of Park River for flood control and other purposes in the Park River
Basin, North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate^
Document Numbered 194, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at
an estimated cost of $358,610.
Missouri River Basin
The project adopted by the Act of Junp 22, 1936, to provide flood
protection for the Kansas Citys, Kansas and Missouri, is hereb}^ modi¬
fied and extended to proAude for improvement substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 342, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at
an estimated additional cost for the modified project of $8,445,000.
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authoiized
the completion of the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
for Cherry Creek and tributaries, Colorado, at an estimated cost of
$7,500,000. _
The project on Knife River for local flood control at Beulah,
North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 252, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $26,100.
The project on Knife Rii^er for local flood control at Hazen,
North Dakota, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 252, Seventy -eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $6,600.
The project on Milk River adopted by the Act of June 22, 1936,
to provide local flood protection at Harlem, Montana, is hereby
[Pub. Law 634.]
12
modified substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Numbered 103, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $21,100.
The project on Milk River for local flood protection at Havre,
Montana, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
Numbered 103, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $313,100.
The project on Boyer River for local flood control on East Fork
of Boyer &ver at Denison, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 254, S.eventy-eighth Congress, first
session, at an estimated cost of $17,830.
The project on Nishnabotna River for local flood control at
Hamburg, Iowa, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Docu¬
ment Numbered 253, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an
estimated cost of $236,000.
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on the
Chariton River, Missouri, is hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 628, Seventy-eigbth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $1,610,300.
The project on Bear Creek for local flood protection at INIorri-
son, Colorado, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance
with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 356, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $220,000.
Ohio River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $70,000,000 for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan approved in the Act of June 28, 1938, as modi¬
fied by the Act approved August 1 8, 1941, for the Ohio River Basin,
including the following projects in tributary basins, namely;
The local flood protection works in the Lake Chautauqua and
Chadakoin River area, substantially in accordance with the recom¬
mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 685, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $135,500;
The local flood protection works at Dillonvale and Adena on Short
Creek, Ohio, substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 889, Sev¬
enty-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $158,200;
The local flood protection works at Taylorsville on Salt River, Ken¬
tucky, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in Senate Document Numbered 105, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $129,350;
The local flood iirotection works at Latrobe on Loyalhanna Creek,
Pennsylvania, substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 444, Sev¬
enty-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $112,500 ;
The plan of improvement for flood control and other purposes in
the Kentucky River Basin, substantially in accordance with the rec-
13
[Pub. Law 534.]
•ommenclations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 504, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
•cost of $23,822,000;
The local flood protection works at Middlesborough on Yellow
Creek, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 495,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$205,200 ;
The local flood protection works on the Rough River and tribu¬
taries, Kentucky, substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
i tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 535,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$360,000 ;
The Turtle Creek Reservoir on Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania, sub¬
stantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers in House Document Numbered 507, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $2,613.000 ;
^ The Burr Oak Reservoir on the Hocking River, Ohio, substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
in House Document Numbered 762, Seventy-seventh Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $400,000.
Neither this authorization nor any previous authorization shall be
construed to authorize the construction of the Shoals Dam on the East
Fork of the White River in Martin Count}^, Indiana, pending sub¬
mission and adoption by Congress of the report authorized in the
Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939.
That the general comprehensive plan for flood control and other
purposes, approved in t(ie Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, for
the Ohio River Basin, is hereby modified to include the construction
of flood-control works for the protection of Ridgway, Johnsonburg,
^ Saint Marys, and Brockway and vicinity in the State of Pennsylvania.
Great Lakes Basin
The project for the Panther INIountain Reservoir on Moose River,
New York, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 405, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
of $600,000.
The project for flood control on Chittenango Creek and tributaries.
New York, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 625, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $111,000.
The projects for flood control on Owasco Inlet and Outlet, Montville
and Dry Creeks, State Ditch, and Crane Brook, New York, are hereby
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 815, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $64,200.
The project for the Mount Morris Reservoir on the Genesee River,
New York, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 615, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $5,360,000.
(Pub. Law 634.J
14
Colorado Elver Basin (Texas)
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
the completion of the plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941,
for the North Concho Kiver, Texas, at an estimated cost of $4,800,000."
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
the completion of the plan approved in the Act of August 18 1941
for Pecan Bayou, Texas, at an estimated cost of $1,560,000. ' ’ "
Brazos Elver Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
the completion of Wliitney Eeservoir in accordance with the plan
approved in the Act of August 18, 1941, for the Brazos Eiver Basin,
at an estimated cost of $15,000,000.
Eio Grande Basin
The project on Willow Creek for local flood protection at Creede,
Coloi ado, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document
Numbered 104, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated
cost of $68,500.
Gr'eat Salt Basin
The project_ on the Sevier Eiver for local flood protection at Eed-
mond, Utah, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the reconiniendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 614, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $281,000.
Colorado Eiver Basin
The project for the Alamo Eeservoir on the Bill Williams Eiver,
Arizona, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the’
recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 625, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $3,202,000.
The project on^ the Little Colorado Eiver for local flood protection
at Holbrook, Arizona, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 648, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $258,000.
San Diego Eiver Basin
The projert on the San Diego Eiver for local flood protection at
ban Diego, California, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 635, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $370,000.
Ventura Eiver Basin
The projects on the Ventura Eiver and tributaries for local flood
protection at Ventura and Ojai, California, are hereby authorized
15
[Pub. Law 534.1
substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Engineers in House Document Numbered 323, Seventy-seventh
Congress, first session, at an estimated cost of $1,600,000.
Santa Ana RmER Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $10,000,000 for the prosecution of the
projects approved in the Act of June 22, 1936, as modified by the Act
of June 28, 1938, for the Santa Ana River Basin and for the protection
of Orange County, California, including the projects on Lytle and
Cajon Creeks for local flood protection at San Bernardino and Colton,
California, in accordance with the recommendations contained in
the report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 11, 1944.
Los Angeles-San Gabriel Basin and Ballona Creek
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $25,000,000 for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan approved in the Act of August 18, 1941, for Los
Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Ballona Creek, California.
Pajaro River Basin
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on the Pajaro
River and tributaries, California, is hereby authorized substantially
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 505, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, at an estimated cost of $511,160.
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin
SACRAMENTO RIimR
The projects for the control of floods and other purposes on the
Sacramento River, California, adopted by the Acts approved March
1, 1917, May 15, 1928, August 26, 1937, and August 18, 1941, are hereby
modified substantially in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 649, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $50,100,000;
and in addition to previous authorizations there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for the prosecution of the
modified projects : Provided^ That this modification of the project
shall not be construed to authorize the construction of a high dam at
the Table Mountain site but shall authorize only the low-level project
to approximately the elevation of four hundred feet above mean sea
level, said low-level dam to be built on a foundation sufficient for such
dam and not on a foundation for future construction of a higher dam.
The project for the Folsom Reservoir on the American River, Cali¬
fornia, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the plans
contained in House Document Numbered 649, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, with such modifications thereof as in the dis¬
cretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be
advisable, at an estimated cost of $18,474,000.
II'UB. Law 531.J
16
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
The project for the Isabella Reservoir on the Kern River for flood
control and other purposes in the San Joaquin Valley, California, is-
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in his report dated January 26, 1944,
contained in House Document Numbered 613, Seventy-eighth Con¬
gress, second session, at an estimated cost of $6,800,000.
The plan for the Terminus and Success Reservoirs on the Kaweah
and Tide Rivers for flood control and other purposes in the San
Joaquin Valley, California, in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in Flood Control Committee Document
Numbered 1, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, is approved,
and there is hereby authorized $4,600,000 for initiation and partial
accomplishment of the plan.
The project for flood control and other purposes for the Kings
River and Tulare Lake Basin, California, is hereby authorized sub¬
stantially in accordance with the plans contained in House Document
Numbered 630, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, with such modi¬
fications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the
Chief of Engineers may be advisable at an estimated cost of
$19,700,000: Provided^ That the conditions of local cooperation speci¬
fied in said document shall not apply: Provided further^ That the
Secretary of War shall make arrangements for payment to the United
States by the State or other responsible agency, either in lump sum
or annual installments, for conservation storage when used : Provided
further^ That the division of costs between flood control, and irriga¬
tion and other water uses shall be determined by the Secretary of
War on the basis of continuing studies by the Bureau of Reclamation,
the War Department, and the local organizations.
The plan of improvement for local flood protection on various
streams in the Merced County Stream Group in the San Joaquin
Valley is hereby authorized suostantially in accordance with the rec¬
ommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Num¬
bered 473, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated
cost of $1,300,000.
The plan of improvement for flood control and other purposes on
the Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries, including Tuolumne
and Stanislaus Rivers, in accordance with the recommendations of
the Chief of Engineers in Flood Control Committee Document Num¬
bered 2, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, is approved, and
there is hereby authorized $8,000,000 for initiation and partial accom¬
plishment of the plan.
The plan of improvement for flood control and other purposes on
the Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, California,
is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommen¬
dations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 545,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$3,868,200.
Napa River Basin
The project for the Conn Creek Reservoir on Conn Creek for flood
control and other purposes in the Napa River Basin, California, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda-
17
IPUB. Law 634.)
tioiis of the Cliief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 626,
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$460,000.
CcxjuiLLE River Basin
The project for flood protection on the Coquille River, Oregon, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 620,
Seventy-seventh Congre.ss, second session, at an estimated cost of
$143,000.
Nehau:m River Basin
The project for flood protection on the Nehalem River, Oregon, is
hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tions of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 621,
Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of
$23,000.
Willamette River Basin
In addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $20,000,000 for the prosecution of the
comprehensive plan approved in the Act of June 28, 1938, for the
AVillamette River Basin, with such modifications thereof as in the
discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable.
Columbia River Basin
The projects on the Snake River for local flood protection at Heise,
Roberts, and Weiser, Idaho, are hereby authorized, substantially in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in
House Document Numbered 452, Seventy-seventh Congress, first ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost of $743,000.
The projects on the Palouse River and tributaries for local flood
jn-otection at Pullman and Colfax, Washington, are hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 888, Seventy-
seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $478,000.
The i^roject on Alkali Canyon for local flood protection at Arling¬
ton, Oregon, is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document
Numbered 631, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an esti¬
mated cost of $118,000.
WiLLAPA River Basin
The project on the Willapa River for local flood protection at
Raymond, Washington, is hereby authorized substantially in accord¬
ance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House
Document Numbered 701, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session,
at an estimated cost of $127,000.
Chehalis Ri\^r Basin
The project on Chehalis River for local flood protection at
Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis, Washington, is hereby
(Pub. Law 634.)
18
authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Nnmbered 494.
Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost or
$669,000.
Territory of Hawaii
The project on the Hanapepe Eiver for local flood protection at
Hanapepe, Island of Kauai, Territory of Hawaii, is hereby author¬
ized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the
Chief of Engineers in the report submitted to Congress by the Secre¬
tary of War on March 15, 1944, at an estimated cost of $73,000.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed
to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for flood control and
allied purposes, including channel and major drainage improvements,
to be made under the direction of the Chief of Engineers, in drain¬
age areas of the United States and its Territorial possessions, which
include the following named localities, and the Secretary of Agri¬
culture is authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations
and surveys for run-otf and waterflow retardation and soil-erosion
prevention on such drainage areas; the cost thereof to be paid from
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for such purposes:
Provided^ That after the regular or formal reports made on any
examination, survey, iiroject, or work under way or proposed are
submitted to Congress, no supplemental or additional report or esti¬
mate shall be made unless authorized by law except that the Secretary
of War may cause a review of any examination or survey to be made
and a report thereon submitted to the Congress if such review is
required by the national defense or by changed physical or economic
conditions: And provided further^ That the Government shall not be
deemed to have entered upon any project for the improvement of
any waterway or harbor mentioned in this Act until the project for
the proposed work shall have been adopted by law:
Pasquotank River, North Carolina. .
Chipola River, Alabama and Florida.
Wacasassa River and it tributaries, Florida, and of adjacent areas
in Gilchrest and Levy Counties, Florida.
Oklawaha River and its tributaries, Florida, and of adjacent areas
in Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida.
Clear Fork of the Mohican River, in Richland County, Ohio.
Hocking River in Hocking County, Ohio.
Leatherwood Creek, Ohio, with particular reference to flood con¬
trol and water supply for Cambridge, Ohio.
For flood control, rice irrigation, navigation, pollution, salt-water
intrusion, and drainage on all streams and bayous in southwest
Louisiana, west of the West Atchafalaya Basin protection levee, and
south of the latitude of Boyce; on all streams and bayous in Louisi¬
ana lying between the East Atchafalaya Basin protection levee and
the Mississippi River ; and on Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana.
Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Scajaquada Creek and its tributaries. New York.
Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Endicott, Johnson City, and
Vestal, New York.
Absecon Island, New Jersey, with a view to the protection of
Atlantic City, Ventnor, Margate City, Longport, and other areas on
19
[Pub. L.^w S34.J
the New Jersey coast, that have been affected from floods due to tide
and'wind.
Juniata River and tributaries, Pennsylvania, with special reference
to the proposed Raystown Reservoir.
Rehoboth Beach, Bethany Beach, Lewes, and Fenwick Island, Dela¬
ware, and other points along the Delaware coast, with a view to pro¬
viding protection against damage resulting from erosion and from
floods due to wind and tide.
Buffalo River, Minnesota.
Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Marsh River, Minnesota.
Sand Hill River, Minnesota.
Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Roseau River, Minnesota.
Snake River, klinnesota.
Middle River, Minnesota.
Tamarac River, Minnesota.
Two Rivers, Minnesota.
Warroad River and Bull Dog Creek, Minnesota.
Mississippi River and its tributaries, in the county of Aitkin, Min¬
nesota.
Apple River, Jo Daviess County, Illinois.
Maumee River, Indiana and Ohio.
Indian Creek, Indiana.
Youghiogheny River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Reno Beach. Lucas County, Ohio, with a view to protection of the
Reno Beach-Howards Farm area and adjacent areas from floods
caused by frequent windstorms and from increases in the lake level of
Lake Erie.
Arkansas River above Pine Bluff, Arkansas, with special reference
to control of caving banks in the vicinity of Hensley Bar and the
McFadden Place, iiCjefferson County, Arkansas.
Osage River, Missouri and Kansas.
Big Canyon on Washita River in klurray County, Oklahoma.
Deep Red Run in Tillman County, Oklahoma; Big Elk Creek,
Little Elk Creek, Salt Fork, Elm Creek, Saddle Mountain, Turkey
Creek, Oklahoma.
San Rafael Creek and its tributaries, California.
Napa River, California.
Grand River, South Dakota.
Moreau River, South Dakota.
Corte Madera Creek, Marin County, California.
Bayamon and Hondo Rivers and their tributaries. Municipality
of Bayamon, Puerto Rico.
Elkhorn River and its tributaries, Nebraska.
Sec. 12. That the sum of $950,000,000 is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for carrying out the improvements herein by the War
Department, the sum of $10,000,000 additional is authorized to be
appropriated and expended in equal amounts by the Departments of
War and Agriculture for canning out any examination or survey
provided for in this Act and any other Acts of Congress, to be prose¬
cuted by said Departments. The sum of $1,500,000 additional is
authorized to be appropriated and expended by the Federal Power
Commission for carrying out any examinations and surveys provided
[Pub. Law 634.J
20
for in this Act or any other Acts of Congress, to be lorosecuted by the
said Federal Power Commission.
The sum of $500,000 additional is authorized to be appropriated as
an emergency fund to be expended under the direction of the Secre¬
tary of War and the- supervision of the Chief of Engineers for the
construction of emergency bank protection works to prevent flood
damage to highways, bridge approaches and public works : Provided^
That pending the appropriation of said sum the Secretary of War
may allot from existing flood control appropriations such sums as may
be necessary for the immediate prosecution of such bank protection
works; such appropriations to be reimbursed from the appropi’iation
herein authorized when made.
Sec. 13. That the following works of improvement for run-off and
waterflow retardation, and soil-erosion prevention, are hereby
adopted and authorized in the interest of the national security and
with a view toward an adequate reservoir of useful and worthy public
works for the post-war construction program to be prosecuted by the
Department of Agriculture, under the direction of the Secretary of
Agriculture, in accordance with the plans of the respective reports
hereinafter designated and subject to the conditions set forth therein :
Provided^ That tiie necessary plans and preliminary work may be
prosecuted during the war with funds from appropriations heretofore
or hereafter made for such works so as to be ready for rapid
inauguration of post-war construction : Provided further^ That when
(he existing critical situation with respect to materials, equipment,
and manpower, no longer exists and in any event not later than
immediately following the cessation of hostilities in the present war,
the projects herein shall be initiated as expeditiously and prosecuted
as vigorouslj^ as may be consistent with budgetary requirements:
Provided f urther^ That nothing in this section shall be construed as
api)roving or authorizing the acquisition of any land by the Federal
Government until the legislature of the State in which the land lies
shall have consented to the acquisition of lands by the United States
for the purposes within the scope of this section: Provided further^
That there shall be paid annually to the county in which any lands
acquired under this section may lie, a sum equal to 1 per centum of
the purchase price paid for the lands acquired in that county or, if
not acquired by purchase, 1 per centum of their valuation at the time
of their acquisition.
Los Angeles River Basin
The program on the Los Angeles River watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the
Under Secretary of Agriculture in Floiise Document Numbered 42C,
Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the
United States of $8,380,000.
Santa Ynez River Watershed
The program on the Santa Ynez River watershed is, hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommendation of
the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Numbered
518, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to
the United States of $434,000.
21
[Pub. Lav? 634.].
Trinity River Basin (Texas)
The program on the Trinity River watershed is hereby approved
substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary
of Agriculture in House Document Numbered 708, Seventy-seventh
Congress, second session, at an estimated cost to the United States
of $32,000,000.
Little Tallahatchie River Watershed
The program on the Little Tallahatchie River watershed is hereby
approved substantially in accordance with the recommendation of
the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Numbered
892, Seventy-seventh Congress, second session, at an estimated cost to^
the United States of $4,221,000.
Yazoo River Watershed
The program on the Yazoo River watershed is hereby approved
substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Acting^
Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Numbered 564, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost to the United
States of $21,700,000.
Coosa River Watershed (A^iove Rome, Georgia)
The program on the Coosa River watershed above Rome, Georgia,,
is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recommenda¬
tion of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Num¬
bered 236, Seventy-eiglith Congress, first session, at an estimated cost
to the United States of $1,233,000.
Little Sioux River Watershed
The program on the Little Sioux River watershed is hereby approved
substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Numbered 268, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the United States
of $4,280,000.
Potomac Rivi‘:r Watershed
The program on the Potomac River watershed is hereby approved
substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Numbered 269, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the United States
of $859,000^
Buffalo Creek Watershed (New York)
BUFFALO, CAYUGA, AND CAZENOVIA CREEKS
The program on the w'atershed of Buffalo Creek and its tributaries,
Cayuga, and Cazenovia Creeks, is hereby approved substantially in
accordance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Agri¬
culture in House Document Numbered 574, Seventy-eighth Congress,
second session, at an estimated cost to the United States of $739,000.
{Pub. Law 631.J
22
Colorado Hiver Watershed (Texas)
The program on those portions of the Colorado lliver watershed
included in the watersheds of Pecan Bayou, San Saba Kiver, Brady
Creek, and the area tributary to the main stream of the Colorado
River below its confluence with the Concho River and above the mouth
of Pecan Bayou, is hereby approved substantially in accordance with
the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in
House Document Numbered 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, first ses¬
sion, at an estimated cost to the United States of $2,693,000.
Washita River Watershed
The program on the Washita River watershed is hereby approved
substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Under
Secretary of Agriculture in House Document Numbered 275, Seventy-
eighth Congress, first session, at an estimated cost to the United States
of $11,243,000.
Sec. 14. That the balance remaining from the authorization of
$10,000,000 provided in section 7 of the Flood Control Act approved
June 28, 1938, for the five-year period ending June 30, 1944, to cor¬
relate the program for the improvement of watersheds by the Depart¬
ment of Agriculture for measures of run-off and waterflow retarda¬
tion and soil-erosion prevention on the watersheds with the program
for the improvement of rivers and other waterway's by the Depart¬
ment of War is hereby reauthorized to be expended during the post-
^ war period by the Department of Agriculture for the prosecution of
the work authorized in section 13 of this Act: Provided^ That not
more than 20 per centum of the authorization made available herein
shall be expended on any one project.
Sec. 15. That section 7 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (Public, Num¬
bered 761, Seventy-fifth Congress), is hereby amended by adding at
the end of the first sentence thereof the following: “The Secretary
of Agriculture is hereby authorized in his discretion to undertake
such emergency measures for run-off retardation and soil-erosion pre¬
vention as may be needed to safeguard lives and property from
floods and the products of erosion on any watershed Avhenever fire
or any other natural element or force has caused a sudden impairment
of that watershed : Provided^ That not to exceed $100,000 out of any
funds heretofore or hereafter appropriated for the prosecution by the
Secretary of Agriculture of works of improvement or measures for
run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on water¬
sheds may be expended during any one fiscal year for such emergency
measures.”
Approved December 22, 1944.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11